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

imonboard

woohoo!!! wrote: »

Part 8 is Councils applying for planning permission and there is public consultation. Depending on what the project is, they apply to the Council (Councillors vote on proposal) or Bord Pleanala. Same third party rights.

Yes, there was also mention of emergency planning route for this site in the articles. I am not sure if this was used here, but it is fair to say that this was the thinking in the dcc voters head when they voted this through.

woohoo!!!

imonboard wrote: »

Yes, there was also mention of emergency planning route for this site in the articles. I am not sure if this was used here, but it is fair to say that this was the thinking in the dcc voters head when they voted this through.

I recall Fingal using emergency powers for social housing in 2018 or so. Now I cannot find an article about it but maybe it's that.

imonboard

Although people are trying to make this black and white, I think there is alot of facets.
The council railroading the project.
The council starting the project whilst it is going to court.
The issues with the site.
The idea that there is nothing sacred anymore, a little village losing its identity. The phoenix park walls being disturbed and views from the park.


The silence from the OPW is unusual to say the least.
The 5 storey blocks blocking the church and the park.
Last but not least the social mix

AulWan

anewme wrote: »

I sold luckily because the rent yields were good. I think then there were 2 owner / Occupiers left in a road of 36 houses. The place became known more as a renter area than homes. I'd not take a chance again. It's too much risk.

Did you sell to the council or a private landlord to let? Not that I personally object to that, you can sell your house to who you like, but there was a thread here recently about private owners selling their houses to the council with no consideration for the remaining neighbours. Happens a lot.

anewme wrote: »

I'd not mind a narky aul ****e like that. I'd say everywhere has one.

Maybe wait until you've actually experienced it, before thinking you wouldn't mind? There point is, not only social housing tenants can have anti-social behaviours.

Some of the worst behaved people with the worst attitudes I've experienced are those who are the most privileged.

anewme

AulWan wrote: »

Did you sell to the council or a private landlord to let? Not that I personally object to that, you can sell your house to who you like, but there was a thread here recently about private owners selling their houses to the council with no consideration for the remaining neighbours. Happens a lot.

I sold my house to a fella my own age, who was going to rent to EHB at the time. He was suspicious as to why I was not keeping it and renting it myself but I'm not fit to be a landlord.

My sister sold hers to Council, no one else wanted it, as there were already Council bought houses either side (one of which was fairly obvious).

woohoo!!!

AulWan wrote: »

Did you sell to the council or a private landlord to let? Not that I personally object to that, you can sell your house to who you like, but there was a thread here recently about private owners selling their houses to the council with no consideration for the remaining neighbours. Happens a lot.



Maybe wait until you've actually experienced it, before thinking you wouldn't mind? There point is, not only social housing tenants can have anti-social behaviours.

Some of the worst behaved people with the worst attitudes I've experienced are those who are the most privileged.

A friend lives on an estate over the road. It has a creche at the end of it so there's flare ups over people dropping and picking up kids. Not unusual really. But what is unusual is that the one person kicking up the most has extended her campaign about anyone visiting at any time and parking on or beside the path (not blocking the road). Her campaign extends to all the 40 something houses here, not just beside her. She will ring the door bell and ask why is there a car parked there. It's like she thinks she owns the estate and hassles everyone with her shtick. She is the opposite of a social housing recipient, she'd be horrified at the idea. Just a snob who is retired with too much time on her hands.

anewme

woohoo!!! wrote: »

A friend lives on an estate over the road. It has a creche at the end of it so there's flare ups over people dropping and picking up kids. Not unusual really. But what is unusual is that the one person kicking up the most has extended her campaign about anyone visiting at any time and parking on or beside the path (not blocking the road). Her campaign extends to all the 40 something houses here, not just beside her. She will ring the door bell and ask why is there a car parked there. It's like she thinks she owns the estate and hassles everyone with her shtick. She is the opposite of a social housing recipient, she'd be horrified at the idea. Just a snob who is retired with too much time on her hands.

That type of person really would not bother me, maybe a bit of a headwreck. I'd just tell them to eff off. I'd rather them than anti social skangers, quad bikes, horses etc.

AulWan

woohoo!!! wrote: »

. It's like she thinks she owns the estate and hassles everyone with her shtick. She is the opposite of a social housing recipient, she'd be horrified at the idea. Just a snob who is retired with too much time on her hands.

Oh, I recognise the type.

These are the type of people who need to live in a one off house in the arsehole of nowhere somewhere where they are far enough from their neighbours that they can't curtain twitch or bother anyone else going about their everyday life.

AulWan

anewme wrote: »

That type of person really would not bother me, maybe a bit of a headwreck. I'd just tell them to eff off. I'd rather them than anti social skangers, quad bikes, horses etc.

You can't really make that judgement until you've lived it. Eff off doesn't really work with these people.

Empty_Space

This County is mad. Go to a shopping center when the kids are off school and see the amount of non working parents with their kids wasting the day.
Obviously not all people fall into this bracket but the problem with the current system is it encourages people to scrounge off the government. Why work hard to get a nice house when you can get the same house for free. And the real problem is that people who actually need help suffer.

No one can tell me social houses dont bring a greater chance of anti social behavior, I've seen it before. So I can completely understand people not being happy. If it was me Id seriously be considering selling up.

AulWan

Empty_Space wrote: »

This County is mad. Go to a shopping center when the kids are off school and see the amount of non working parents with their kids wasting the day.

How do you know those parents haven't taken a day annual leave from work because the kids are off school?!?!

Maybe they look at you and think why aren't you at work?!?!?

Mad stuff, Ted!

Empty_Space

AulWan wrote: »

How do you know those parents haven't taken a day annual leave from work because the kids are off school?!?!

Maybe they look at you and think why aren't you at work?!?!?

Mad stuff, Ted!

Obviously this is just a specific example.
But the point is between free housing in nice areas, handouts and high childcare costs, this Country encourages welfare living.
Obviously some people are in desperate need of help but there are many who could work but choose not to. There are generations of scroungers out there.

Also, the type of people who are been given houses bring a much greater risk of antisocial behavior for a variety of reasons. They dont own the house, havent worked for it and often are less educated.

AulWan

Buy into stereotypes much? I hope life always keeps fine for you, and you never find yourself in need of assistance.

As for the selling up to avoid social housing part, well, you just never know.

You could go to all the trouble of selling and moving and then the council could buy the house next door to you in your nice new sanitised social housing free area, and put in a council tenant.

I had no say when the council bought houses in my nice private mature housing estate, including the one directly next door. But you know what? It's worked out fine.

riclad

Most council estate,s in dublin are in dublin west,tallaght, ballymun, finglas etc
i can understand if someone pays 400k for a house in a private estate ,
and then after a few years the council decide to build 5 storey apartment block close to the village .
Listen to any talk show, read the forum,s ,we need more house,s in dublin and more apartments .
There is a system to submit an objection if the new building is too large or not suitable the area.
Most anti social behavior is carried out by young people .
if suddenly theres 200 more young people in an area than the chances of crime or anti social behavior increase,s .
In terms of traffic and infrastructure its more effecient to build a 5 storey
block than build house,s .
we need more high density housing in dublin,
phoenix park is quite large,
its ridiculous to say we cannot build any high building near it because it ruins the view .
Anyone in social housing has to pay rent.its not free .
The rent is based on the house hold income .
go to a council estate, you,ll see a car outside most house,s .
i don,t think people on the dole drive cars,s i presume those people are working .

Empty_Space

AulWan wrote: »

Buy into stereotypes much? I hope life always keeps fine for you, and you never find yourself in need of assistance.

As for the selling up to avoid social housing part, well, you just never know.

You could go to all the trouble of selling and moving and then the council could buy the house next door to you in your nice new sanitised social housing free area, and put in a council tenant.

I had no say when the council bought houses in my nice private mature housing estate, including the one directly next door. But you know what? It's worked out fine.

I dont know if you are disagreeing with me or not.

I said council houses increase the risk of anti-social behavior when compared to your average home buyer. Are you disagreeing?
I did not claim all social houses bring trouble, obviously there are many that are fine.

I also agreed that there are people legitimately in need of help. The problem is the scrounger mentality effects these people negatively.

AulWan

Empty_Space wrote: »

I dont know if you are disagreeing with me or not.

I said council houses increase the risk of anti-social behavior when compared to your average home buyer. Are you disagreeing?
I did not claim all social houses bring trouble, obviously there are many that are fine.

I also agreed that there are people legitimately in need of help. The problem is the scrounger mentality effects these people negatively.

I think the risk is being vastly exaggerated and it gets inflamed on sites like these.

I grew up in what was considered a rough council estate, I worked as an employee of the Department of Social Welfare for many years on a hatch and processing claims, and the vast, vast majority of people on social welfare are decent people. They come from all walks of life, as I have found bad luck can hit people at any time of their life.

As for those in social housing, the bad element is a tiny minority. But again, all are tarred with the same brush by "average people" like you. I bought in a private estate myself, and have experienced far more difficult to live with neighbours with anti-social behaviours then I did in the council estate I grew up in.

So lets just say, I don't buy into the stereotypes, and I won't be rushing to put the for sale sign out because of social housing in my estate. Live and let live.

Empty_Space

AulWan wrote: »

I think the risk is being vastly exaggerated and it gets inflamed on sites like these.

Maybe it is exaggerated but at least you have agreed it is an issue.
The fact that it increases risk at all should give you an indication as to why residents are annoyed.
The rate at which it increases risk is all subjective. Maybe in your personal experience its not that high but you do come from a council estate so consider that your opinion may be biased.

In my experience the vast majority of people are not happy when their neighboring house becomes a council house, this is reality. You may put it down to snobbiness but I can tell you in my case its because I would know there is an increased risk of said people causing problems. Also, without a doubt council houses negatively effect the properties price.

Not even mentioning how unfair it is in some cases. There are people out there who can work but choose not to. I have a fried who bought a house for 400k and there are council houses down the road for free with people who just dont want to work. ( again not all cases but this absolutely exists).

AulWan

Don't put words in my mouth. I never agreed there was an extra risk, I said there are good and bad people everywhere. .

And yes, I do come from a council estate and I have no reason to be ashamed of it. What it has given me, is a lack of tolerance for snobbery. I don't suffer from postcode envy, or worry about the fact that I paid for my house and will hopefully have twenty years of living rent/mortage free after its paid off.

Council houses are not free. Maybe you can console your friend by telling him that one day his mortgage will be paid off, while his neighbours will be paying rent to the Local Authority until the day they die. At the end of it all, there won't be as much in the difference between they paid, as you might think.

Empty_Space

AulWan wrote: »

Don't put words in my mouth. I never agreed there was an extra risk, I said there are good and bad people everywhere. .

The very reason council houses were integrated with normal housing and not thrown into council housing estates as they were in the past, is because these estates became dens of antisocial behavior. The idea was that by integrating these people in society you give them a better chance and prevent black zones.

Given this knowledge, to then deny council residence bring more risk is biased denial, not based on facts.

Also you did say extra risk is exaggerated, which acknowledges risk, sorry if I cant read your mind.

AulWan

Empty_Space wrote: »

The very reason council houses were integrated with normal housing and not thrown into council housing estates as they were in the past, is because these estates became dens of antisocial behavior. The idea was that by integrating these people in society you give them a better chance and prevent black zones.

Given this knowledge, to then deny council residence bring more risk is biased denial, not based on facts.

Also you did say extra risk is exaggerated, which acknowledges risk, sorry if I cant read your mind.

Let me clarify it for you then. From the benefit of my experience of having lived in both council housing and a private estate, and now a private estate with some social housing, there is as much chance of you ending up with ****ty neighbours in a private estate, as there is in a social housing estate.

As I posted earlier, in my experience some of the worst behaved people I've ever met, are those who grew up with the most privilege.

Empty_Space

AulWan wrote: »

Let me clarify it for you then. From the benefit of my experience of having lived in both council housing and a private estate, and now a private estate with some social housing, there is as much chance of you ending up with ****ty neighbours in a private estate, as there is in a social housing estate.

As I posted earlier, in my experience some of the worst behaved people I've ever met, are those who grew up with the most privilege.

Of course this is possible, Im not saying there is no risk of anti social behavior from non council neighbors or that all council residents are bad( majority are fine).
Im saying the risk is higher from council houses, if you deny this you are only lying to yourself. How much your risk increases is arguable.

This country is gas
No-one wants any council houses built near anything at all, but then they go out & vote for sinn fein who will build thousands of social houses!

Empty_Space

bubblypop wrote: »

This country is gas
No-one wants any council houses built near anything at all, but then they go out & vote for sinn fein who will build thousands of social houses!

Sinn Fein need to focus on why they need to build social houses.

Why are some people choosing not to work?, why are rents so high?, why are house prices so high?

AulWan

Empty_Space wrote: »

Of course this is possible, Im not saying there is no risk of anti social behavior from non council neighbors or that all council residents are bad( majority are fine).
Im saying the risk is higher from council houses, if you deny this you are only lying to yourself. How much your risk increases is arguable.

I've clarified my position for you. I'm not going to keep repeating myself again and again.

Empty_Space

AulWan wrote: »

I've clarified my position for you. I'm not going to keep repeating myself again and again.

Yes based on your limited experience you have decided to deny facts. Clarified.

Empty_Space

Empty_Space wrote: »

Im saying the risk is higher from council houses, if you deny this you are only lying to yourself..

You are claiming that people who live in council houses are more likely to engage in anti social behavior then people who live in private houses. Do you know how that sounds.
It is discrimination & snobbiness & if you deny this you are lying to yourself.

Empty_Space

bubblypop wrote: »

You are claiming that people who live in council houses are more likely to engage in anti social behavior then people who live in private houses. Do you know how that sounds.
It is discrimination & snobbiness & if you deny this you are lying to yourself.

Its a fact. Its the very reason they decided to integrate social housing.

Its the very reason people dont want council housing in there area. I will give you that for some people snobbiness come to play, but its also based on reality.

The background of some people who end up in social housing makes them and there children more risky to cause trouble in an area. Srry if I hurt anyones feelings.

jimmycrackcorm

AulWan wrote: »

Which is exactly WHY social housing should never be built in that way again, and should always be mixed in with private, affordable, and privately rented estates.

Social housing is not always a disaster and doesn't always mean anti-social tenants.

I am a private owner who lives in a mature private estate with all of the above, and there are have been no increases in anti-social behaviour that I have seen, from the houses within the estate that have been purchased by the Council.

It can and does work.

It's too expensive to try to buy private houses for social purposes. Let alone the fact that for integration you'd need to build multiples of private homes.

The real problem is that were unwilling to do anything about anti social behaviour in social housing areas. Evict the perpetrators and you'd soon see it disappear. There should be a social contract that if you're getting a free house then you have to behave otherwise you're out.

AulWan

Empty_Space wrote: »

Yes based on your limited experience you have decided to deny facts. Clarified.

Facts you came up with to fit your own bias. I think the one with the limited experience is you, Empty_Space.

I, at least, have lived in a council estate, bought in a private one, and now live in a private estate with some social housing mixed in.

ARe you still rushing to get your for sale sign up, just at the thought of it?

AulWan

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

It's too expensive to try to buy private houses for social purposes. .

I agree. But it is the solution the Council seems to be defaulting too at the moment, until more houses are built.

Every house in my estate that has come up for sale in the last two years or so has been bought either by the council or by private buyers who then rent them out, rather then live in them.

I don't know if those renting are in receipt of HAP, or paying the full rent themselves. I do see the occupants coming and going morning and evening, so I presume are working.

I haven't seen any increase in anti-social behaviour.