Nimbyism towards social housing.

political analyst

Why do so many people in this country have a Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) approach to the planned construction of social housing?

Leg End Reject

Because some (note some, not all) of the tenants are scumbags and ruin it for everyone else.

One eyed Jack

Because social housing is synonymous with scumbag neighbours.

Cork Trucker

This should be interesting

Deebles McBeebles

Leg End Reject wrote: »

Because some (note some, not all) of the tenants are scumbags and ruin it for everyone else.

You can close the thread now, thats your answer.

KilOit

political analyst wrote: »

Why do so many people in this country have a Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) approach to the planned construction of social housing?

You know the answer, dogs in the street even know

Zebra3

NIMBYism isn't just towards social housing, it's towards everything.

BANANAs.

stoneill

I have no issues with social housing in the area, as long as it's not near me.

BanditLuke

A boards thread on social housing. Thought i'd never see the day.

Morpork

Was helping my friend move house over the weekend and he was telling me about their council house next door neighbour.
My friend wanted planning permission for an extension out the back and that neighbour went around to all the neighbours in the area, lied about what the extension was and got them to oppose it. Neither of them work at all, yet my friend who busts his balls working to support his growing family had to move out because they denied his extension.

The same neighbours would constantly make noise with hammers, power tools etc late at night even though my friend had young kids trying to sleep. When he went to ask them to stop the noise (politely) they told me to "fcuk off or I'll put this hammer through your head".

patmac

Why is there a thread about social housing in Namibia on Boards.ie.? Should be boards.nm surely?

freshpopcorn

Magaret Cash!

Its human nature to moan.

The daughter of one of my sister's friend got offered a house by a housing association she has a very good job but has a husband who never really has a job and now he is a stay at home dad.

Anyway, my sister's friends did not say its fantastic that her daughter was getting a home ect or anything positive like that, the conversation was about how some of the other in the housing was getting free white good( which may be due to being on social welfare or a low income ). In other words, a moan that someone else might be getting something.

Ray Palmer

Real world consequences of living near social housing is the main reason. You now may have neighbours that are anti-social. That can make your area unsafe. The other factor is it may reduce the value of your property. That is because people may think their will be antisocial behaviour or there actually is.
Values can drop by more than 10% which is €40-€50k. How many people are willing to give up that kind of money?

Cork Trucker

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Real world consequences of living near social housing is the main reason. You now may have neighbours that are anti-social. That can make your area unsafe. The other factor is it may reduce the value of your property. That is because people may think their will be antisocial behaviour or there actually is.
Values can drop by more than 10% which is €40-€50k. How many people are willing to give up that kind of money?

You forgot to mention you are/were a landlord. Has this devaluation happened to you?

Ray Palmer

Cork Trucker wrote: »

You forgot to mention you are/were a landlord. Has this devaluation happened to you?

I didn't forget to mention it. It has no bearing on how people feel and devaluing of property.

Cork Trucker

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I didn't forget to mention it. It has no bearing on how people feel and devaluing of property.

Of course it does, many private landlords despise people in receipt of hap etc, and would rather not have a social tenant next door to their property

Ray Palmer

Cork Trucker wrote: »

Of course it does, many private landlords despise people in receipt of hap etc, and would rather not have a social tenant next door to their property

No it has no bearing what so ever to what I said in this thread.

Lollipops23

My mother grew up next to a social housing estate in the 60s and 70s. The place wasn't trashed and the majority seemed to take pride in their homes.

Why is it so common now for SH estates to look like warzones and with tonnes of anti social problems?

Lillyfae

Lollipops23 wrote: »

My mother grew up next to a social housing estate in the 60s and 70s. The place wasn't trashed and the majority seemed to take pride in their homes.

Why is it so common now for SH estates to look like warzones and with tonnes of anti social problems?

Because there are no consequences to such behaviour, which is also why the NIMBYism exists I would imagine.

Lollipops23

Lillyfae wrote: »

Because there are no consequences to such behaviour, which is also why the NIMBYism exists I would imagine.

Were there consequences in years gone by? I don't know a huge amount about it.

Ray Palmer

Lollipops23 wrote: »

My mother grew up next to a social housing estate in the 60s and 70s. The place wasn't trashed and the majority seemed to take pride in their homes.

Why is it so common now for SH estates to look like warzones and with tonnes of anti social problems?

Because as time went on the people who took the hand up moved on. What remains was the people who expect the world to pay their way.

There was less of a divide in 60/70 but as people moved up those with less became resentful. Drugs were also a factor as criminals became more violent to keep their business interests secure.

My mother grew up in social housing and people were grateful for the help out of tenements. My first house I bought was a former council house. A few doors down from my granny's. One of the houses was also lived in by a grandchild of the original tenant. It was still owned by the council and the lease was passed down the family. My gran bought hers and I bought mine yet this family has 3 generations live off the state.

Pawwed Rig

The government policy at the moment is to spread out the social housing through the population rather than having another Darndale or similar. It would seem to make sense as a policy until you realise that you are working hard to pay a mortgage and your next door neighbour is getting it for free.

Ray Palmer

Lollipops23 wrote: »

Were there consequences in years gone by? I don't know a huge amount about it.

Social pressure was sort of stricter then. People were expected to be good Christian's and if you weren't people would sort of shun you. Society changed and people were allowed to be more free in personal choices.

That also meant being an ahole was easier and people stopped caring about what others thought. The thing is it was replaced with a different set of rules that were enforced with violence. Talking to the police or reporting minor offences is now dangerous in some places so they don't do it. Places get worse and people stop caring so it gets worse

Leg End Reject

Lollipops23 wrote: »

My mother grew up next to a social housing estate in the 60s and 70s. The place wasn't trashed and the majority seemed to take pride in their homes.

Why is it so common now for SH estates to look like warzones and with tonnes of anti social problems?

Social housing was traditionally for working class people.

Now they have a large cohort of welfare class people who euphemistically call themselves working class.

Some of these will have a different outlook on life altogether, with no concept of personal or community responsibility.

Ray Palmer

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

The government policy at the moment is to spread out the social housing through the population rather than having another Darndale or similar. It would seem to make sense as a policy until you realise that you are working hard to pay a mortgage and your next door neighbour is getting it for free.

Not quite though. Yes policy not to build other large social housing estates of the past is in place. They are also entitled to at least 10% of developments for social housing.

The problem is they aren't doing that. The private development in Beaumont Dublin was to have 15% social housing but a housing agency bought it. It became 100% social housing. They are also doing something similar elsewhere even before the builds are complete.

One of the worst plans is Coolock. An area that has had it's fair share of social issues and predominantly social housing. There are plans to build apartments but they have now morphed. Instead of adding private owners to the area they are now build to let and social housing. Making Coolock even larger social housing area through the back door. HAP will be used a lot in the rentals. They did something a bit similar in Santry Woods but people could buy them and it is small landlords renting to HAP. Coolock will be large private company paying no tax.

Lollipops23

Leg End Reject wrote: »

Social housing was traditionally for working class people.

Both my folks came from working class homes...in that their fathers both worked in low-skilled jobs and none of them went to 3rd level.

It's mind boggling that people in dire need of housing feel like they are entitled to the same set up as people who break their bollox working and saving for years.

You need a home? Fine, here's basic 2 up 2 down house. It's insulated well, so nobody will freeze.

You want a nice 4 bed semi with all the bells and whistles? Save up like everyone else.

Leg End Reject

Lollipops23 wrote: »

Both my folks came from working class homes...in that their fathers both worked in low-skilled jobs and none of them went to 3rd level.

It's mind boggling that people in dire need of housing feel like they are entitled to the same set up as people who break their bollox working and saving for years.

You need a home? Fine, here's basic 2 up 2 down house. It's insulated well, so nobody will freeze.

You want a nice 4 bed semi with all the bells and whistles? Save up like everyone else.

I'd imagine most of us come from working class backgrounds, but were brought up to pay our way etc.

I feel sorry for lower paid workers if they're lumped into an estate with scumbags, or people who have bought in private estates to see an house that goes on the market snapped up by housing charities or local authorities. It's pot luck who you'll end up living beside. All it takes is one or 2 families to destroy an area and ruin other people's enjoyment of their home.

Ray Palmer

Leg End Reject wrote: »

I'd imagine most of us come from working class backgrounds, but were brought up to pay our way etc.

I feel sorry for lower paid workers if they're lumped into an estate with scumbags, or people who have bought in private estates to see an house that goes on the market snapped up by housing charities or local authorities. It's pot luck who you'll end up living beside. All it takes is one or 2 families to destroy an area and ruin other people's enjoyment of their home.

The things is it really is rarely just 1 or 2 families as people like to say. It really is entire streets and areas. You can go to some areas and all the houses are run down and there is rubbish on the streets. Nobody pays for a skip and just dump furniture and white goods on the street.

Crock Rock

I wish social housing was given out on a social credit system.
If you are well behaved, you get a nice place.

The more scum you are, the worse you'll get. Scum with several convictions should be housed in large ghettoised areas in communal rooms with bunk beds. Let natural wastage take its course.

AulWan

political analyst wrote: »

Why do so many people in this country have a Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) approach to the planned construction of social housing?

Because they are snobs, or landlords who put more value on bricks and mortar, then they do on other humans.

Next thread.

Ray Palmer

AulWan wrote: »

Because they are snobs, or landlords who put more value on bricks and mortar, then they do on other humans.

Next thread.

There are some humans worth less than an empty packet of crisps.

Some people think they are better than others whether it is because they are "salt of the earth" or "better educated" neither are better if they pre-judge just using different criteria.

AulWan

Ray Palmer wrote: »

There are some humans worth less than an empty packet of crisps.

To you, maybe Ray.

Personally, I find your often repeated opinion that maintaining property values for landlords like yourself takes precedence over providing homes for people who need them, utterly disgusting, and would place less then the value of a packet of crisps on it.

The OP asked for opinions. I gave mine, and its not for changing. Not on this thread, or any of the others that pop up here, now daily.

Really, Boards should have a policy about multiple threads that just rehash the same boring content all the time.

None of us can pick our neighbours

You can end up with cnut neighbours no matter where you live.

JohnnyFlash

Lollipops23 wrote: »

My mother grew up next to a social housing estate in the 60s and 70s. The place wasn't trashed and the majority seemed to take pride in their homes.

Why is it so common now for SH estates to look like warzones and with tonnes of anti social problems?

Individualism. The belief in the importance of the self above all others.

There’s also a huge amount of anger towards society and the ‘establishment’.

Marhay70

Local Authorities not living up to their responsibilities is part of the problem.
We had a family on a RAS scheme living in one house. They were the original neighbours from hell and terrorised the area, father was in and out of Jail,for drugs, robbery and assault , never seemed to spend a lot of time behind bars though. The landlord was an absentee and took no interest in the property or who his tenants were as long as he was getting his money every month from the Council. The Council were a signatory to the lease and a clause in the agreement said that they were equally responsible for the behaviour of the tenants but every time the residents approached them they tried to pass it off as the sole responsibility of the landlord, that is if they bothered to reply to us at all.
One night the family just disappeared, thank God and it transpired that they hadn't paid a cent in rent to the Council for almost the entire three and a half years they were there, yet the Council made no effort to evict them.
This is what happens when responsibility is abdicated and rules are not enforced, the dregs in society take advantage of weak administration.

Ush1

Lollipops23 wrote: »

My mother grew up next to a social housing estate in the 60s and 70s. The place wasn't trashed and the majority seemed to take pride in their homes.

Why is it so common now for SH estates to look like warzones and with tonnes of anti social problems?

Used to be vigis, concerned parents against drugs who were usually backed by paramilitary links, proper Republicans not the drug dealers singing rebel songs crowd.

Dealers, junkies and other little toerags had fear.

Now if someone is suspected of being a rat they're dead or life made a living hell. Compete 180.

Mad_maxx

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Social pressure was sort of stricter then. People were expected to be good Christian's and if you weren't people would sort of shun you. Society changed and people were allowed to be more free in personal choices.

That also meant being an ahole was easier and people stopped caring about what others thought. The thing is it was replaced with a different set of rules that were enforced with violence. Talking to the police or reporting minor offences is now dangerous in some places so they don't do it. Places get worse and people stop caring so it gets worse

the chattering classes ( including the liberal media ) have created a narrative whereby nothing whatsoever is expected of people who fall into the category of " vulnerable "

even if people in social housing behave in a delinquent fashion , its somehow the fault of the irish middle class according to Fintan o Toole and vincent browne

Mad_maxx

Ray Palmer wrote: »

The things is it really is rarely just 1 or 2 families as people like to say. It really is entire streets and areas. You can go to some areas and all the houses are run down and there is rubbish on the streets. Nobody pays for a skip and just dump furniture and white goods on the street.

i own a town house not that far from st marys park in limerick , took a drive all around st marys a year or so ago , looks like downtown aleppo only with more horse ****

Mad_maxx

Marhay70 wrote: »

Local Authorities not living up to their responsibilities is part of the problem.
We had a family on a RAS scheme living in one house. They were the original neighbours from hell and terrorised the area, father was in and out of Jail,for drugs, robbery and assault , never seemed to spend a lot of time behind bars though. The landlord was an absentee and took no interest in the property or who his tenants were as long as he was getting his money every month from the Council. The Council were a signatory to the lease and a clause in the agreement said that they were equally responsible for the behaviour of the tenants but every time the residents approached them they tried to pass it off as the sole responsibility of the landlord, that is if they bothered to reply to us at all.
One night the family just disappeared, thank God and it transpired that they hadn't paid a cent in rent to the Council for almost the entire three and a half years they were there, yet the Council made no effort to evict them.
This is what happens when responsibility is abdicated and rules are not enforced, the dregs in society take advantage of weak administration.

if the councils evicted those scumbags , ruth coppinger and Brid smith would be on their feet roaring abuse at Leo Varadkar about how decent hard workers were being thrown out on the street , RTE would have Fr Peter Mc Verry on the six o clock news spinning the same story

councils are under pressure not to evict no matter how badly some tenants behave

Marhay70

Mad_maxx wrote: »

if the councils evicted those scumbags , ruth coppinger and Brid smith would be on their feet roaring abuse at Leo Varadkar about how decent hard workers were being thrown out on the street , RTE would have Fr Peter Mc Verry on the six o clock news spinning the same story

councils are under pressure not to evict no matter how badly some tenants behave

That's a reason, not an excuse. Politicians have to live up to their responsibilities as well and not always be trying to project an image. Weak leadership and an excess of career politicians has reduced government on all levels to talking shops and the apathy of the general population in their response to this compounds the problem.

pgj2015

what i cant understand is if you were living in an estate where these scum families are causing trouble, how could the decent families not get a little group together to call around and kick them out? people are way too soft on scumbags in this country.

Manc_Red

Two years ago we were lucky to get a house in a new estate in Tallaght.

Next door neighbors have proceeded to constantly make loud noise, argue & take drugs.

It's no wonder people get pis*ed off with the likes of them.

Marhay70

pgj2015 wrote: »

what i cant understand is if you were living in an estate where these scum families are causing trouble, how could the decent families not get a little group together to call around and kick them out? people are way too soft on scumbags in this country.

There's a little hindrance called the law and unfortunately those charged with upholding and implementing the law, fail to do so.

KevRossi

There's all kinds of NIMBYism, it comes in different forms. For example, here's Aengus O'Snodaigh Sinn Fein TD, and SF Cllr. Daithi Doolan objecting to planning for housing for 2,500 people in their own back yard.


https://www.businesspost.ie/ireland/sinn-fein-td-leads-objections-to-1000-apartment-complex-5c48bd9a

Graces7

Morpork wrote: »

Was helping my friend move house over the weekend and he was telling me about their council house next door neighbour.
My friend wanted planning permission for an extension out the back and that neighbour went around to all the neighbours in the area, lied about what the extension was and got them to oppose it. Neither of them work at all, yet my friend who busts his balls working to support his growing family had to move out because they denied his extension.

The same neighbours would constantly make noise with hammers, power tools etc late at night even though my friend had young kids trying to sleep. When he went to ask them to stop the noise (politely) they told me to "fcuk off or I'll put this hammer through your head".

That was not because he was a council tenant but because he was a ********* Have had far far worse behaviour from non council tenants

Ray Palmer

AulWan wrote: »

To you, maybe Ray.

Personally, I find your often repeated opinion that maintaining property values for landlords like yourself takes precedence over providing homes for people who need them, utterly disgusting, and would place less then the value of a packet of crisps on it.

The OP asked for opinions. I gave mine, and its not for changing. Not on this thread, or any of the others that pop up here, now daily.

Really, Boards should have a policy about multiple threads that just rehash the same boring content all the time.

You really don't understand. That has never been an opinion I have stated but you THINK I have because you don't listen or can't comprehend.

It isn't landlords objecting but residents. Ordinary people don't want to lose value in assets they spent their lives gathering. They don't want an increase in antisocial behaviour that they perceive will be caused by social housing. There is evidence that this is likely.

I have spoke on matters regarding rent controls and devaluing landlord's properties while also threatening to seize their property. They are not the same thing. Driving small landlords out of the industry will have an impact and will make things worse for renters and the low paid.

You want an ideal but can't understand how to achieve it and would make things worse if you had your way. Most landlords want stability and the least amount of hassle. Demonising landlords like you do won't improve anything and the sooner you realise they are vital to provide rental properties the sooner you can talk like an adult on the subject.

political analyst

Mad_maxx wrote: »

if the councils evicted those scumbags , ruth coppinger and Brid smith would be on their feet roaring abuse at Leo Varadkar about how decent hard workers were being thrown out on the street , RTE would have Fr Peter Mc Verry on the six o clock news spinning the same story

councils are under pressure not to evict no matter how badly some tenants behave

Then the councils should make their side of the story crystal clear. After all, the Dublin City CEO was successful when he stood his ground during the Garth Brooks fiasco.