more nimbyism in Chapelizod ***Read Mod Note in OP***

Xterminator

"Residents seek injunction to stop work on Chapelizod social housing site"

I get so annoyed by this. i wonder how many of these same residents voted for a party that would address the housing issue, but are opposed to social housing near their homes.

Dying to see which of the local TDs are in their corner!

Mod Note 20/2 8:14pm

Folks over the last few days this thread has descended into a pit of social housing bashing/defending which has completely drowned out the original topic.

Rather than see the thread closed, please limit any new posts to matters directly relating to the proposed Chapelizod development.

Thanks

Ray Palmer

How would you feel if 20% of an asset you own was lost? It would be useful if there was an article or report so people could see why they are objecting.

Coolock residents are rightly concerned with the plans for development there. Huge build to let apartments on the site of a former employer in the area.

jam_mac_jam

The houses are not going to drop 20% because some social housing is near.

is_that_so

Ray Palmer wrote: »

How would you feel if 20% of an asset you own was lost? It would be useful if there was an article or report so people could see why they are objecting.

Coolock residents are rightly concerned with the plans for development there. Huge build to let apartments on the site of a former employer in the area.

It's only assigned a value when want to sell, until then it's a home. Some of those concerned in Coolock would be living in former social housing that they bought. Just had a five storey go up beside me and another one of nine planned quite close by. I'm OK with both.

Ray Palmer

is_that_so wrote: »

It's only assigned a value when want to sell, until then it's a home. Some of those concerned in Coolock would be living in former social housing that they bought. Just had a five storey go up beside me and another one of nine planned quite close by. I'm OK with both.

No it has a value straight away for any financing you might want. It doesn't matter when the loss is actually realised it is a permanent loss and mostly increase in monetary value if not a percentage value.

Just because you are OK with it doesn't mean other have to. You didn't understand the immediate effect that others would notice straight away.

Ray Palmer

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

The houses are not going to drop 20% because some social housing is near.

It has happened and will happen again.There are huge houses on the Ballymun road that are worth a lot less because of the name of the road. Meanwhile houses smaller and further along what is effectively the same road selling for 40% more. The residents have spent years trying to rename the road as a result.

jam_mac_jam

Ray Palmer wrote: »

It has happened and will happen again.There are huge houses on the Ballymun road that are worth a lot less because of the name of the road. Meanwhile houses smaller and further along what is effectively the same road selling for 40% more. The residents have spent years trying to rename the road as a result.

There is no way the drop is that high.

So where do you build them then? Under the sea? On the moon?

meijin

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

So where do you build them then? Under the sea? On the moon?

simple - NIMBY!! :rolleyes:

is_that_so

Ray Palmer wrote: »

No it has a value straight away for any financing you might want. It doesn't matter when the loss is actually realised it is a permanent loss and mostly increase in monetary value if not a percentage value.

Just because you are OK with it doesn't mean other have to. You didn't understand the immediate effect that others would notice straight away.

No lack of understanding at all I just value it as a home and a place I am happy to live. When or if I sell it'll be to move to another home. I am also happy to welcome new people to the neighbourhood as it means they don't have to live in a field in a place they've never heard of.

Caranica

Thread title says Chapelizod but discussion is about Coolock???

Would you like to love beside social housing? I certainly wouldn’t and would strongly object. Crap like this is why I’m glad to be living rurally and zero risk of any of this crap.

Would you like to live beside social housing? I certainly wouldn’t and would strongly object. Crap like this is why I’m glad to be living rurally and zero risk of any of this crap.

Mongfinder General

Kairi Witty Hitter wrote: »

Would you like to love beside social housing? I certainly wouldn’t and would strongly object. Crap like this is why I’m glad to be living rurally and zero risk of any of this crap.

Don't count your chickens. If the price is right the council may slam up a Lego set over night.

Varta

As I understand it the residents were promised a mix of social and affordable. Now it's 100% social. Lots of people renting apartments there would like to buy affordable. Doesn't seem fair to only build social.

Eric Cartman

Varta wrote: »

As I understand it the residents were promised a mix of social and affordable. Now it's 100% social. Lots of people renting apartments there would like to buy affordable. Doesn't seem fair to only build social.

estate agents, development funds and builders are quickly discovering that 10% social is the absolute max and they have to be seperate units , theres even been sneaky attempts at doing 10% straight social and cluid etc.. buying another 10% , as soon as the bank valuers or often prospective buyers get whiff of it the valuations drop and the interest along with it.

Very very hard to get people to part with cash knowing the people beside them more than not don't work and got the house for 30 quid a week.

Varta

Social mix works. Chapelizod is probably the most socially mixed area in Dublin and a great example of how social mixing works. 100% social building will likely upset that balance. It's not often you get residents in an area advocating for a social/affordable mix. I think they are right.

beauf

Another thread about nimbyism in someone else's area....

More about it here...

https://amp.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/residents-seek-injunction-to-stop-work-on-chapelizod-social-housing-site-981364.html

Mongfinder General

Mongfinder General wrote: »

Don't count your chickens. If the price is right the council may slam up a Lego set over night.

Surrounded by our own land and outside that by people who would sell a family member before they would sell a blade of grass.

listermint

Ray Palmer wrote: »

How would you feel if 20% of an asset you own was lost? It would be useful if there was an article or report so people could see why they are objecting.

Coolock residents are rightly concerned with the plans for development there. Huge build to let apartments on the site of a former employer in the area.

What utter drivel is this.

There are not houses in or anywhere near chapelizod dropping 20% in value by some social units going up there.

For someone who claims to know accommodation ray this is an awful load of codswallop. Chapelizods location and access to the city won't drop anyone's house value.

You typing this with a straight face..

LeineGlas

Ray Palmer wrote: »

How would you feel if 20% of an asset you own was lost?

Jesus Christ. This is A&P in a nutshell.

Let poor people die on the on the streets because you want to accumulate wealth.

Kairi Witty Hitter

Kairi Witty Hitter wrote: »

Would you like to live beside social housing? I certainly wouldn’t and would strongly object. Crap like this is why I’m glad to be living rurally and zero risk of any of this crap.

What's your problem living beside social housing?
And no, I wouldn't have any problems living beside any.

Fann Linn

LeineGlas wrote: »

Jesus Christ. This is A&P in a nutshell.

Let poor people die on the on the streets because you want to accumulate wealth.

And people wonder why the Shinners cleaned up.

Kivaro

LeineGlas wrote: »

Jesus Christ. This is A&P in a nutshell.

Let poor people die on the on the streets because you want to accumulate wealth.

Not getting a free home for life in a particular location in Dublin, to be paid for by the Irish worker, does not equate to poor people dying on the streets.

Xterminator

Would you like to live beside social housing? I certainly wouldn’t and would strongly object. Crap like this is why I’m glad to be living rurally and zero risk of any of this crap.

so whats your wise suggestion for the 100,000 social & affordable homes that SF plan to build, which funny enough is the same number FF have in their manifesto? The houses are badly needed, there are people dying literally for the want of a roof over their head and yet you would personally object, delay and deter much needed housing because you don't want 'that kind of people' living near you?

The arguments you see here against social housing tenants are exactly the same ones used by racists who say they don't want to live next to black people. Well im not surprised because if you can hate a whole class of people then it doesn't take much to transfer that hate to another group who are not your type.

“We put all the cops in minority neighborhoods . . . Because that’s where all the crime is.” Michael Bloomberg’

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

What's your problem living beside social housing?
And no, I wouldn't have any problems living beside any.

Anti-social behavior, crime, no respect for property or area, why should they live for free/cheap beside people who are working hard everyday to pay for their house etc etc.

I spent a brief period of time living beside a social house when house sharing in an otherwise very nice estate and it’s the only house I’ve ever had hassle living beside. House was bought by the council after I moved in. It was a disgrace to have them living among otherwise normal, high tax paying families and young professionals. They were a family with young kids too so you can only imagine when their kids get older or others get into the area.

Yes you will say that’s one example and they aren’t all like that, correct of course but there is a high percentage of bad and chances are you will have at least some bad eggs living beside you if there is social housing.

Xterminator wrote: »

so whats your wise suggestion for the 100,000 social & affordable homes that SF plan to build, which funny enough is the same number FF have in their manifesto? The houses are badly needed, there are people dying literally for the want of a roof over their head and yet you would personally object, delay and deter much needed housing because you don't want 'that kind of people' living near you?

Purpose built social housing estates.

Xterminator wrote: »

The arguments you see here against social housing tenants are exactly the same ones used by racists who say they don't want to live next to black people. Well im not surprised because if you can hate a whole class of people then it doesn't take much to transfer that hate to another group who are not your type.

That is total rubbish to be fair. There are very strong grounds and many reasons for not wanting to live beside social housing or why people paying for their home should not have to live beside them.

Kairi Witty Hitter

Kairi Witty Hitter wrote: »

Anti-social behavior, crime, no respect for property or area, why should they live for free/cheap beside people who are working hard everyday to pay for their house etc etc.

I spent a brief period of time living beside a social house when house sharing in an otherwise very nice estate and it’s the only house I’ve ever had hassle living beside. House was bought by the council after I moved in. It was a disgrace to have them living among otherwise normal, high tax paying families and young professionals. They were a family with young kids too so you can only imagine when their kids get older or others get into the area.

Yes you will say that’s one example and they aren’t all like that, correct of course but there is a high percentage of bad and chances are you will have at least some bad eggs living beside you if there is social housing.



Purpose built social housing estates.




That is total rubbish to be fair. There are very strong grounds and many reasons for not wanting to live beside social housing or why people paying for their home should not have to live beside them.

This is all rubbish.

'It was a disgrace to have them living among otherwise normal, high tax paying families and young professionals'

People who live in social housing are not normal? Are you actually serious.
Sometimes I read your posts & I honestly wonder if you are posting from the 1950s.
The old fashioned & discriminatory remarks you make on here are quite honestly unbelievable!

You seem to more bothered by people 'not paying'for houses & living beside people who buy their home. Why should it bother you if the person next door owns their house or not? It's really none of your business! What if the person next door bought their house 35 years ago? Does it matter that they paid ten times less then someone else in the same estate?

Just one more thing, children living in social housing benefit much more from having their community a mixture. It's good for them to see workers & see what they can achieve.

You're a snob.

Xterminator

Anti-social behavior, crime, no respect for property or area, why should they live for free/cheap beside people who are working hard everyday to pay for their house etc et

yes, that's the same argument you see on fox news too .. . them mexicans are all rapists and criminals. Of course they are not all rapists but the fear of one rapists means you should shun the whole race, build a big wall, and ignore any suffering caused. keep them in their own 'estates'.

and that's your argument in a nutshell.

here is a thought for you. the vast majority of social housing candidates are decent people. It is not the fault of the good people in social housing that the courts in ireland do not punish low level criminality. It is not their fault the council rarely evict bad tenants. But we will collectively shun and punish them because of the actions of the minority.

instead of say, changing the law for people who commit anit social actions, introduce enforceable asbos and make the council live up to its responsibilities?

No lets tar them all with the same brush. its easier.

Spanish Eyes

The only issue I see with this development is that the Council should be obliged to set aside 20% or whatever for affordable housing, just like the 20% in private developments!

Does anyone have a mock up of the design or where would I find it.

I don't live in that area (Chapelizod), but I know it well. The site is magnificent, backing on to the Phoenix Park, across the road from a lovely 19th century church, on the banks of the Liffey, bus to town in 15 or so minutes and so on. It is a prime site. If designed well it could be great as there is nothing else along that road besides a car dealership and the boat clubs.

There is another vacant site near the bridge and AFAIK it is council owned too, has been derelict for donkeys years. That's next I'd say.

The site under consideration is on the left here.

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3474791,-6.3406568,3a,75y,100.43h,96.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szyZFDGUbodrZEjx3Qwhprg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

This is the other vacant site on the left.
https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3483175,-6.3468078,3a,75y,289.23h,93.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjlViQpuIAhcQm3ETvGuHYA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Ray Palmer

is_that_so wrote: »

No lack of understanding at all I just value it as a home and a place I am happy to live. When or if I sell it'll be to move to another home. I am also happy to welcome new people to the neighbourhood as it means they don't have to live in a field in a place they've never heard of.

That is not what you said. You said it had no effect until selling. It might not bother you but that is not to say others aren't bothered. You don't get to dismiss the effects for others. If they want to complain they have valid reason whether you are bothered or not.

Nermal

Xterminator wrote: »

so whats your wise suggestion for the 100,000 social & affordable homes that SF plan to build, which funny enough is the same number FF have in their manifesto?

Build them to lower standards on cheap land outside the M50. Expensive sites in desireable locations like Chapelizod should be sold for private development.

Building A-rated homes on valuable land to effectively give away is moronic policy.

Sleepy

CPO family / neighbour's land and build cheaply there!

Sleepy

Sleepy wrote: »

CPO family / neighbour's land and build cheaply there!

Way too far from anywhere to ever worry about that. Motorways are the only thing that get cpo around us and that’s already done.

Sweet.Science

I have worked my ass off since i was 18 and cant afford property in Chapelizod

People have never worked in their life and filled a form out online when they were 18 will end up living there

How is this acceptable?

Sweet.Science

Sweet.Science wrote: »

I have worked my ass off since i was 18 and cant afford property in Chapelizod

People have never worked in their life and filled a form out online when they were 18 will end up living there

How is this acceptable?

because there is an onus on the state to house people who cannot house themselves. Maybe you might have heard about the homeless issues in Dublin???

and why would you think people who have social homes in Chapelizod have never worked in their life?

Varta

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

The only issue I see with this development is that the Council should be obliged to set aside 20% or whatever for affordable housing, just like the 20% in private developments!

Does anyone have a mock up of the design or where would I find it.

I don't live in that area (Chapelizod), but I know it well. The site is magnificent, backing on to the Phoenix Park, across the road from a lovely 19th century church, on the banks of the Liffey, bus to town in 15 or so minutes and so on. It is a prime site. If designed well it could be great as there is nothing else along that road besides a car dealership and the boat clubs.

There is another vacant site near the bridge and AFAIK it is council owned too, has been derelict for donkeys years. That's next I'd say.

The site under consideration is on the left here.

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3474791,-6.3406568,3a,75y,100.43h,96.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szyZFDGUbodrZEjx3Qwhprg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

This is the other vacant site on the left.
https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3483175,-6.3468078,3a,75y,289.23h,93.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjlViQpuIAhcQm3ETvGuHYA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

The site in your second link is privately owned. The development that is going ahead is a quick build modular design. What the residents group wants is a good design, properly built with a social mix. They want to see the site developed and new homes made available, just not 100% social housing and poor quality build. I don't think it can be lumped in with the usual nimbyism.

listermint

Sweet.Science wrote: »

I have worked my ass off since i was 18 and cant afford property in Chapelizod

People have never worked in their life and filled a form out online when they were 18 will end up living there

How is this acceptable?

have you considered affordable housing ? Its the norm in well run developed countries on the continent to have mixed affordable housing.

Perhaps you should be able to live in chapelizod.

You know areas do actually need people of all wages scales to function right ?

i mean who do you think works in Tesco, the coffee shops, collects your bins, does your taxes, is your solicitor, is your GP.

Just because someone earns less than you or conversely more than you doesnt make them a better person or a scummy person.


Housing is for all, well it was for all until the Americans started messing with the markets in the late 70s early 80s and here we are today.

Ray Palmer

bubblypop wrote: »

because there is an onus on the state to house people who cannot house themselves. Maybe you might have heard about the homeless issues in Dublin???

and why would you think people who have social homes in Chapelizod have never worked in their life?

They don't have to house them in better housing in prime locations than people paying their own way.

There are towns complaining about depopulation they could house people.

The highest positions on housing lists will be single parents with no jobs. That is how the lists work so they will get effectively free houses because all their income is state benefits. Equivalent salary for a parent with 3 kids and in state benefits is around €60k income. That jumps up if they have a house in a nice area provided.

AulWan

Kairi Witty Hitter wrote: »

That is total rubbish to be fair. There are very strong grounds and many reasons for not wanting to live beside social housing or why people paying for their home should not have to live beside them.

Says he who is thirty something and still lives (rurally) with his Ma.

Nermal

bubblypop wrote: »

because there is an onus on the state to house people who cannot house themselves.

There's no onus on the State to house them 6KM from the centre of the capital in apartments built to exacting building standards though, is there?

LuckyLloyd

Hopefully the objections will be swept aside in due course. You own your house, you don’t own land near your house. The objections are obviously frivolous, and will fail.

AulWan

AulWan wrote: »

Says he who is thirty something and still lives (rurally) with his Ma.

What has your totally irrelevant point got to do with what I said?

Social housing should not be mixed into mice expensive residential developments.

AulWan

Kairi Witty Hitter wrote: »

What has your totally irrelevant point got to do with what I said?

Social housing should not be mixed into mice expensive residential developments.

Says the thirty something who still lives at home (rurally) with his Ma - for free.

Varta

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Hopefully the objections will be swept aside in due course. You own your house, you don’t own land near your house. The objections are obviously frivolous, and will fail.

Ownership of land does not give anyone the right to do as they please with it. Good planning and building regulations are essential. As citizens we should all have the right to object when we see what we believe is bad planning or a failure to adhere to building regulations. We all have to share the built environment. As for the objections that you have decided are obviously frivolous, I would be grateful if you could link to them.

Sir Oxman

Kairi Witty Hitter wrote: »

Anti-social behavior, crime, no respect for property or area, why should they live for free/cheap beside people who are working hard everyday to pay for their house etc etc.

<snip further arseholery>
Working people need social housing.

collywobble7

Xterminator wrote:

there are people dying literally for the want of a roof over their head

No there aren't.

riclad

no ones dying,the worst off are maybe children who live in a hotel room for years .
IF people want the economy to grow , we need 20k housing units per year to be built.this includes social housing .
Some companys will stop coming to ireland as there is a shortage of quality rental units for workers on a average wage.
fg and fianna gael have a policy to provide social housing.
that includes housing for pensioners , people on disability allowance.
dublin city council have 1000,s of people on the housing list,
they cannot say would you like a house in kerry or donegal.the reason why people go to citys and urban area,s is thats where the new jobs are .
Maybe things will get better if theres fast broadband avaidable in every rural town and more people can work from home .
people are also objecting to new apartment blocks, in certain area,s which are not social housing units.
things may get better since the rule,s have changed to allow 10-15 storey buildings in the city centre .

AulWan

AulWan wrote: »

Says the thirty something who still lives at home (rurally) with his Ma - for free.

Irrelevant, It’s not costing the tax payer and I’ll be paying a large amount of money (and associated taxes) and employing a number of people to build my own house very shortly.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Ray Palmer wrote: »

They don't have to house them in better housing in prime locations than people paying their own way.

There are towns complaining about depopulation they could house people.

The highest positions on housing lists will be single parents with no jobs. That is how the lists work so they will get effectively free houses because all their income is state benefits. Equivalent salary for a parent with 3 kids and in state benefits is around €60k income. That jumps up if they have a house in a nice area provided.

How so? They don’t own the house so its value doesn’t benefit them.

AulWan

Kairi Witty Hitter wrote: »

Irrelevant, It’s not costing the tax payer and I’ll be paying a large amount of money (and associated taxes) and employing a number of people to build my own house very shortly.

Which makes your comments on social housing developments in Dublin, irrelevant.

Cyrus

Sir Oxman wrote: »

<snip further arseholery>
Working people need social housing.

We need affordable housing for working people on lower incomes , people's issues generally is houses for people who don't work

ExoPolitic

Whilst I understand why some people don't want new social housing built in the capital and parrot "why does it have to be in Dublin" , Dublin does require it. Imagine the state of Dublin if there were no cleaners/ sweepers, nobody in employment in retail or any other lower paid job... The city would cease to function.