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

It's laughable that some posters just can't admit to being snobs & looking down on people who don't have as much money as them.

Graces7

Kairi Witty Hitter wrote: »

Some people do thankfully

To me having to do out and spend 3 or 400k on a house and get stuck living near council tenants, paying a fraction of the cost and almost certainly impacting on area is just totally and utterly unacceptable and I'm damn glad to be able to avoid such a situation.

Its laughable that some posters are unwilling to admit that there is a vastly higher chance of anti-social behaviour and crime in social housing estates or private estates with social housing compared to fully private estates.

This attitude is arguably in itself a form of anti social behaviour/agent provocateur

Xterminator

Kairi Witty Hitter wrote: »

Some people do thankfully

To me having to do out and spend 3 or 400k on a house and get stuck living near council tenants, paying a fraction of the cost and almost certainly impacting on area is just totally and utterly unacceptable and I'm damn glad to be able to avoid such a situation.

your 300 - 400k doesn't include the entire estate, it ends at the boundary to your house.

• you dont get the right to dictate who lives elsewhere
• or what their living arrangements & rent/mortgage should b
• you dont get a veto on prospective neighbors

Its none of your business what your neighbors arrangements are as long as they are legal. you bought your house and your house alone.

Ray Palmer

bubblypop wrote: »

It's laughable that some posters just can't admit to being snobs & looking down on people who don't have as much money as them.

It is plainly riddiculious to deny social issues in social housing. There are plenty here doing the exact same judgment in reverse. You can't claim the high road if you do the same bias things just from a different stance.

My relative loves pigeons and did well for himself and bought a big house in a fancy area. He proceeds to build a large pigeon coup. At the time you needed planning permission to do that. Neighbours complain and planning authority tells him to pull it down. He claimed they were all snobs looking down their noses at him because he had a working van and they drove luxury cars. He did a host of things to irritate his neighbours as revenge. His wife eventually insisted they move because of his behaviour. He was the problem. He was more bias than the snobs he complained about.

Xterminator

Xterminator wrote: »

your 300 - 400k doesn't include the entire estate, it ends at the boundary to your house.

• you dont get the right to dictate who lives elsewhere
• or what their living arrangements & rent/mortgage should b
• you dont get a veto on prospective neighbors

Its none of your business what your neighbors arrangements are as long as they are legal. you bought your house and your house alone.

I know the above, which is why I am gland not to have to live in an estate but in a place where I can dictate who my neighbours are.

Also it very much is people's business who their neighbours are as it impacts massively on their life.

I don't really care if people call me a snob etc, doesn't bother me in the slightest. There are a few posters here who are understandably very biased about social housing as they obviously come form social housing so they are going to stand up for it regardless of the all the evidence that it does have a far higher chance of bringing trouble and breeds resentment among hard working home owners paying large mortgages.

They are naive if they think that the vast majority of people in the country wouldn't hold my view on the topic though.

Ray Palmer

Ray Palmer wrote: »

It is plainly riddiculious to deny social issues in social housing. There are plenty here doing the exact same judgment in reverse. You can't claim the high road if you do the same bias things just from a different stance.

My relative loves pigeons and did well for himself and bought a big house in a fancy area. He proceeds to build a large pigeon coup. At the time you needed planning permission to do that. Neighbours complain and planning authority tells him to pull it down. He claimed they were all snobs looking down their noses at him because he had a working van and they drove luxury cars. He did a host of things to irritate his neighbours as revenge. His wife eventually insisted they move because of his behaviour. He was the problem. He was more bias than the snobs he complained about.

Thanks for proving my point!
No-one has any say in who moves into their estate, especially if it's private

Ray Palmer

bubblypop wrote: »

Thanks for proving my point!
No-one has any say in who moves into their estate, especially if it's private

He moved and it doesn't prove your point. He was a trouble making resident because he came from a social housing background. He lacked basic manners and adherence to planning laws. He then was petty and aggravated the situation. Once he was gone the other neighbours had a peaceful life. Increasing the chances of such people moving into areas just means more similar trouble. You keep denying this is even a problem. It is

I like how you ignored the other part of what I said.

Ray Palmer

Ray Palmer wrote: »

He moved and it doesn't prove your point. He was a trouble making resident because he came from a social housing background. He lacked basic manners and adherence to planning laws. He then was petty and aggravated the situation. Once he was gone the other neighbours had a peaceful life. Increasing the chances of such people moving into areas just means more similar trouble. You keep denying this is even a problem. It is

I like how you ignored the other part of what I said.

Lol
He moved into a private estate, the neighbors didn't like it. But couldn't do anything about it.
Anyway, it's going off topic here big time

AulWan

Ray Palmer wrote: »

It is plainly riddiculious to deny social issues in social housing. There are plenty here doing the exact same judgment in reverse. You can't claim the high road if you do the same bias things just from a different stance.

My relative loves pigeons and did well for himself and bought a big house in a fancy area. He proceeds to build a large pigeon coup. At the time you needed planning permission to do that. Neighbours complain and planning authority tells him to pull it down. He claimed they were all snobs looking down their noses at him because he had a working van and they drove luxury cars. He did a host of things to irritate his neighbours as revenge. His wife eventually insisted they move because of his behaviour. He was the problem. He was more bias than the snobs he complained about.

Nobody denies there are social issues in social housing. But I disagree that integrating social housing within private housing estates automatically leads to an increase in anti social behaviour.

It hasn't been the case in my estate. Living proof that it can and does work well.

It does seem that many are in denial that there are plenty of anti-social issues in privately owned estates as well. Anything which disturbs someone's peaceful enjoyment of there home is classed as anti-social behaviour and I would consider over-intrusive neighbours who, for example, harsass children playing outside, or think they have a right to dictate who parks where (just two examples on this thread) - as every bit as anti-social and unpleasant to live beside as someone who throws a lot of parties or causes a lot of noise.

When you live in a housing estate, you have to be prepared to live and let live.

If you have no kind of tolerance for others, or are merely concerned with preserving the value of your "asset" , then those kind of people are definitely the type who should put there money where their mouths are and move or remain out in the arsehole of nowhere where they can't bother - or be bothered - by anyone else.

But, there but for the grace of god go I. This is a small country and there is a big push to put more social housing outside of Dublin, and sooner or later, those vast tracks of rural land will be developed. It will follow, as sure as night follows day.

I'll leave it there. Its lunchtime, and I'm hungry.

Cyrus

bubblypop wrote: »

Lol
He moved into a private estate, the neighbors didn't like it. But couldn't do anything about it.
Anyway, it's going off topic here big time

well they could, they got his pigeon coop taken down.

Ray Palmer

bubblypop wrote: »

Lol
He moved into a private estate, the neighbors didn't like it. But couldn't do anything about it.
Anyway, it's going off topic here big time

He moved and his pigeon coup was taken down beforehand. You have a strange concept of not doing anything. He moved because his wife insisted on it after he got a letter from a lawyer neighbour point out they had video of him interfering with neighbours property.

Ray Palmer

AulWan wrote: »

Nobody denies there are social issues in social housing. But I disagree that integrating social housing within private housing estates automatically leads to an increase in anti social behaviour.

No people were denying it including yourself. I believe housing should be integrated but not how it is being applied. Suitable social housing within the private estates but not the same as the privately own ones.

I have just described hone my own relative was a trouble resident. He affect over 20 different neighbours on his own. If his wife reacted the same it would have been worse. She descelated the whole thing.

A no tolerance approach to antisocial behaviour when moved into social housing in a private estate. Like they did with the Ballymun flats after they made a mess moving in troublesome residents in because nobody else would move in. Increased the problems.

Graces7

Ray Palmer wrote: »

No people were denying it including yourself. I believe housing should be integrated but not how it is being applied. Suitable social housing within the private estates but not the same as the privately own ones.

Not sure what you mean.. at least I hope I am not right in what I am thinking you are meaning. Please explain? Thank you

Ray Palmer

Graces7 wrote: »

Ray Palmer wrote: »

No people were denying it including yourself. I believe housing should be integrated but not how it is being applied. Suitable social housing within the private estates but not the same as the privately own ones.

Not sure what you mean.. at least I hope I am not right in what I am thinking you are meaning. Please explain? Thank you

Simple if you are building an estate of 5 bed houses with 3 receptions and a kitchen that is not suitable for social housing. That is premium property that is unaffordable to most people. You should not get a premium house because you are on a social housing list. It would be deeply unfair to do that for everyone. I saw an estate of 20 houses which included stables and double garages. Under the old rules the council got a payment to provide the social housing elsewhere as they were unsuitable properties for social housing. Under the new rules 2 would be given to social housing. As a result such developments won't happen.

Do you think social housing should give out housing worth 1 million? I don't. They wouldn't be able to afford the upkeep and people won't want to spend that money to live beside somebody who gets it for free. Seems reasonable to me.

AulWan

Ray Palmer wrote: »

My relative loves pigeons and did well for himself and bought a big house in a fancy area. He proceeds to build a large pigeon coup. At the time you needed planning permission to do that. Neighbours complain and planning authority tells him to pull it down. He claimed they were all snobs looking down their noses at him because he had a working van and they drove luxury cars. He did a host of things to irritate his neighbours as revenge. His wife eventually insisted they move because of his behaviour. He was the problem. He was more bias than the snobs he complained about.

Wait, you say this man bought his house?

So he not a local authority tenant, on HAP, a private renter, or housed in social housing within a private estate?

He was a private owner?

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I have just described hone my own relative was a trouble resident.

If your neighbour's behaviour was considered anti-social, it had nothing to do with social housing. It was to do with your relative. He was a private owner.

I seriously hope you are not suggesting that those from local authority housing who do well for themsevles should not be allowed to buy in private estates?

Ray Palmer wrote: »

He was a trouble making resident because he came from a social housing background. He lacked basic manners and adherence to planning laws. He then was petty and aggravated the situation. Once he was gone the other neighbours had a peaceful life. Increasing the chances of such people moving into areas just means more similar trouble.

Well, I guess that means you do think that. I think the above shows your true opinion of those who come from social housing - and your true bias, Ray.

Personally, I think your attitude is disgusting and prejudiced. The above goes way beyond "snob".

Graces7

AulWan wrote: »

Wait, you say this man bought his house?

So he not a local authority tenant, on HAP, a private renter, or housed in social housing within a private estate?

He was a private owner?



If your neighbour's behaviour was considered anti-social, it had nothing to do with social housing. It was to do with your relative. He was a private owner.

I seriously hope you are not suggesting that those from local authority housing who do well for themsevles should not be allowed to buy in private estates?



Well, I guess that means you do think that. I think the above shows your true opinion of those who come from social housing - and true bias, Ray.

Personally, I think your attitude is disgusting and prejudiced. The above goes way beyond "snob".

Have you read the post re social welfare tenants should not be allowed in bigger houses? You are right; way beyond any term.

anewme

I went house hunting recently...I was considering moving or doing up my house so was open to options for both.

In a small newbuild Estate, all houses were labelled D1, B1, C2 etc.

I enquired after a particular house type, which was 3 bed semi.

I was looking at the best position for the house I wanted...orientation etc and had a couple picked out. When I looked at the map...where they put the red dots on when its sold, there were 3 or 4 additional houses in the middle of a row. No one knew what they were in the sales office but were not for sale. I asked when would they be coming up for sale as they might suit me (there's only me) but was told no.

Eventually I got to the bottom of it, but only after a lot of digging. They were the social houses.

The social houses were different in type than the private houses and were beside the cheapest version of the private houses. They were lovely houses, but certainly different than the others, smaller certainly, although still 3 bed.

I felt it was poor the way the information was not freely available.

Ray Palmer

AulWan wrote: »

Wait, you say this man bought his house?

So he not a local authority tenant, on HAP, a private renter, or housed in social housing within a private estate?

He was a private owner?



If your neighbour's behaviour was considered anti-social, it had nothing to do with social housing. It was to do with your relative. He was a private owner.

I seriously hope you are not suggesting that those from local authority housing who do well for themsevles should not be allowed to buy in private estates?



Well, I guess that means you do think that. I think the above shows your true opinion of those who come from social housing - and your true bias, Ray.

Personally, I think your attitude is disgusting and prejudiced. The above goes way beyond "snob".

He was the problem doesn't matter how he got there. He upset his neighbours by breaking planning rules. He then started petty revenge. It was all attitude about how everyone around him was a snob.

I don't care what you think because you don't pay attention. He thought he was superior to his neighbours. If you think that makes me a snob or some level above that is your issue.

I explained how social behaviour of a person I know was out of whack with his neighbours. It was antisocial behaviour and criminal. It was due to his reactions and behaviour which is because he has a huge chip on his shoulder.

Ray Palmer

Graces7 wrote: »

Have you read the post re social welfare tenants should not be allowed in bigger houses? You are right; way beyond any term.

Something you failed to respond to after asking for an explanation. If you have something to say about my points please do.

I made it very clear why and it wasn't about big houses it was about appropriate housing for social housing.

AulWan

Ray Palmer wrote: »

He was the problem doesn't matter how he got there. He upset his neighbours by breaking planning rules. He then started petty revenge. It was all attitude about how everyone around him was a snob.

I don't care what you think because you don't pay attention. He thought he was superior to his neighbours. If you think that makes me a snob or some level above that is your issue.

I explained how social behaviour of a person I know was out of whack with his neighbours. It was antisocial behaviour and criminal. It was due to his reactions and behaviour which is because he has a huge chip on his shoulder.

Yeah, whatever Ray - I don't pay attention! Ok, lol. :rolleyes:

Like no one who owns a house is EVER anti-social, follows every rule, or has ever built something without planning permission. Or basically, acted like an asshole.

Worst example EVER.

Graces7

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Something you failed to respond to after asking for an explanation. If you have something to say about my points please do.

I made it very clear why and it wasn't about big houses it was about appropriate housing for social housing.

Which happened to have 5 bedrooms? Which amounts to the same thing. Nothing inappropriate about a well built attractive house for a large family who happen to seek social housing. Sounds an excellent place to raise a family.

Graces7

Graces7 wrote: »

Which happened to have 5 bedrooms? Which amounts to the same thing. Nothing inappropriate about a well built attractive house for a large family who happen to seek social housing. Sounds an excellent place to raise a family.

If they can’t afford to house themselves they shouldn’t be having kids. Absolutely no way should the tax payer be funding luxury 5 bedroom houses for social housing tenants.

Ray Palmer

Graces7 wrote: »

Which happened to have 5 bedrooms? Which amounts to the same thing. Nothing inappropriate about a well built attractive house for a large family who happen to seek social housing. Sounds an excellent place to raise a family.

And 3 reception room with kitchen diner, double garage and stables.

Spanish Eyes

Most people in Social Housing are fine. But the reality is, if you don't own it, and the council wipe your backside the minute anything goes wrong you are not going to have the same interest in your house as those who are mortgaged to the hilt and want their house to keep its value.

I don't care how many come back at me, but I have seen it countless times.

Anyway, the total scandal is the amount of rent arrears in DCC, and I would guess it is replicated in every Council area too. No sanctions either. If I default on the mortgage it is trouble almighty.

There is something to be said for personal responsibility, but if it is not enforced ie rent arrears, that is stopping councils from putting money into building other properties for those who need them.

Sigh.

AulWan

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Most people in Social Housing are fine. But the reality is, if you don't own it, and the council wipe your backside the minute anything goes wrong you are not going to have the same interest in your house as those who are mortgaged to the hilt and want their house to keep its value.

Yes, I will come back at you because that is simply not true. That is just another bias that is bandied about, that council tenants do not care about their homes. Of course they do.

If it were not, why would people in council homes bother upgrading them at their own expense? Putting in fitted wardrobes, fitted kitchens, nice decor and flooring, etc.

Drive around any council estate and you will see many very nicely kept houses. My parents' are keen gardeners and their gardens are magnificent. Mature trees and shrubs, grass kept lovely.

It may not be their asset, but it is still their home, and they look after it.

Spanish Eyes

Do your parents have to call a plumber/electrician/builder etc when things go wrong though?

Nice to hear they are looking after their property, but I bet when the big ticket items come through they contact the council. Council will not fit wardrobes. But I always thought that council properties had to be of the highest possible standards these days. Is that why vacant houses are ripped out and everything is newly installed for the benefit of the recipient?

Someone has to pay for this largesse.

AulWan

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Do your parents have to call a plumber/electrician/builder etc when things go wrong though?

Nice to hear they are looking after their property, but I bet when the big ticket items come through they contact the council. Council will not fit wardrobes. But I always thought that council properties had to be of the highest possible standards these days. Is that why vacant houses are ripped out and everything is newly installed for the benefit of the recipient?

Someone has to pay for this largesse.

My parents have been paying rent for 40 years and still are even now in their 80s.

They've more than paid for the cost of the structure of the house plus any maintenance the council has been done to it over the years, which is not as much as you might think.

When we moved in it had no heating bar an open fire in the living room and another in the kitchen. Wooden frame single glazed windows and exterior doors, concrete floors. They've poured a lot of money into making the house a home over the years, all at their own expense. They paid for the central heating, double glazing, new internal doors, skirtings, better-than-basic kitchen and bathroom. All upgrades they paid for out of their own pocket.

They are obliged as tenants to call the council if there is an issue with electrics or plumbing - I believe this is the same with private renters? And up until recently they did pay for the annual boiler servicing but the Council wrote saying that they were taking that over.

I believe the council houses nowadays are of a much higher standard, and that is as it should be. Get over your begrudgery, its just plain nasty. And it will give you wrinkles.

Empty_Space

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Most people in Social Housing are fine. But the reality is, if you don't own it, and the council wipe your backside the minute anything goes wrong you are not going to have the same interest in your house as those who are mortgaged to the hilt and want their house to keep its value.

I don't care how many come back at me, but I have seen it countless times.

Anyway, the total scandal is the amount of rent arrears in DCC, and I would guess it is replicated in every Council area too. No sanctions either. If I default on the mortgage it is trouble almighty.

There is something to be said for personal responsibility, but if it is not enforced ie rent arrears, that is stopping councils from putting money into building other properties for those who need them.

Sigh.

Exactly, I know a lovely estate were you can spot the row of council houses.
Why?, Mainly because a few of the occupants decided the front driveway is a good place to dump out all their old stuff, like a matress, wood and other rubbish. You'd think temporarily, but it's there an age.
There's also usually kids stuck out the front as if they've been locked out by parents but that's a different story.

Empty_Space

AulWan wrote: »

My parents have been paying rent for 40 years and still are even now in their 80s.

They've more than paid for the cost of the structure of the house plus any maintenance the council has been done to it over the years, which is not as much as you might think.

When we moved in it had no heating bar an open fire in the living room and another in the kitchen. Wooden frame single glazed windows and exterior doors, concrete floors. They've poured a lot of money into making the house a home over the years, all at their own expense. They paid for the central heating, double glazing, new internal doors, skirtings, better-than-basic kitchen and bathroom. All upgrades they paid for out of their own pocket.

They are obliged as tenants to call the council if there is an issue with electrics or plumbing - I believe this is the same with private renters? And up until recently they did pay for the annual boiler servicing but the Council wrote saying that they were taking that over.

I believe the council houses nowadays are of a much higher standard, and that is as it should be. Get over your begrudgery, its just plain nasty. And it will give you wrinkles.

Now we reach the real story. In there for 40 years, so much for temporary accommodation while they get over troubles and can pay way like everyone else.

AulWan

Empty_Space wrote: »

Now we reach the real story. In there for 40 years, so much for temporary accommodation while they get over troubles and can pay way like everyone else.

Empty_Space, my parents both worked every day of their lives until they retired.

Unfortunately, as people of their generation did, neither of them were in school beyond the age of 14, yet somehow they managed to raise a family of five while working hard at manual and unskilled jobs.

They made enough to feed and clothe us, and lived pay day to pay. Unfortunately, however, banks did not consider people like them for mortgages.

If you think that makes them deserving of your spiteful, contemptible remarks, then it says more about you then it does them.