Is it fair to mix social housing with privately owned homes?

Dorakman

Or will this just lead to embitterment on both sides?

Yurt2

Idbatterim

I think its a piss take with the rate that social housing is charged, yes. Also say you have multiple blocks of housing or an estate. Should they be beside each other or in the same blocks... I dont think so, they will still be in the same development. The chances of putting up with piss takers is far higher if they are in social housing, a generalisation, but a true one...

LeinsterDub

Dorakman wrote: »

Or will this just lead to embitterment on both sides?

It's been happening for years. Can you point of any example of embitterment barring perhaps one or two fringe cases?

Eric Cartman

is it fair to mix social and affordable (<100k) housing - I would say so. Is it fair to mix housing in super pricey parts of the country like 500k+ homes in dublin with social housing - absolutely not. Its the largest insult to our working middle class that they have to save and scrimp hard and jacinta whose never paid a prsi contribution in her life ends up with the same house.

LuckyLloyd

“Fair” is not the right word. It is essential.

Jinglejangle69

On top of it all the cost to pay for the social housing in the estate is added on to the price of each house bought by tax payers buying with a mortgage.

I've said it before.

Its like winning the lottery.

Dorakman

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

“Fair” is not the right word. It is essential.

Why is it essential?

rob316

Dorakman wrote: »

Why is it essential?

So we don't create the next generation of **** hole ghettos that we spend "regenerating" in 20 years from now.

You have to mix it.

Mad_maxx

rob316 wrote: »

So we don't create the next generation of **** hole ghettos that we spend "regenerating" in 20 years from now.

You have to mix it.

thats a law enforcement issue

Eric Cartman

rob316 wrote: »

So we don't create the next generation of **** hole ghettos that we spend "regenerating" in 20 years from now.

You have to mix it.

mixing is just dilution, if you spread them out the anti social behaviour becomes less noticable, we're not solving the problem, just making people who work deal with it too.

Dorakman

rob316 wrote: »

So we don't create the next generation of **** hole ghettos that we spend "regenerating" in 20 years from now.

You have to mix it.

So you’re admitting it’s the people in these places that are the problem?

CPTM

Mad_maxx wrote: »

thats a law enforcement issue

You're talking about cure - everyone else is talking about prevention.

Padre_Pio

Eric Cartman wrote: »

mixing is just dilution, if you spread them out the anti social behaviour becomes less noticable, we're not solving the problem, just making people who work deal with it too.

It's a proven concept that integrating social housing leads to better outcomes for disadvantaged children.

If all your friends are doing well at school and going to college, you're more likely to do the same.

BanditLuke

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

On top of it all the cost to pay for the social housing in the estate is added on to the price of each house bought by tax payers buying with a mortgage.

I've said it before.

Its like winning the lottery.

Yes yes we know, like winning the lottery.

Eric Cartman

CPTM wrote: »

You're talking about cure - everyone else is talking about prevention.

stop incentivising having kids as a route to free housing
stop enabling people to choose to live off the welfare state their entire lives
stop people being incentivised to choose social housing because even workers cant afford to live near their families in cities.
punish parents for being lax and expecting the state to raise their kids for them.

Eric Cartman

Padre_Pio wrote: »

It's a proven concept that integrating social housing leads to better outcomes for disadvantaged children.

If all your friends are doing well at school and going to college, you're more likely to do the same.

has anyone done a study on how social housing negatively impacts the children of the middle classes buying houses ?

Fred Cryton

When will they learn, we are never going to "integrate". We're never going to have Jacinta over for dinner.

It's just a farce and a con. Why is this being forced upon us? They say it only takes one bad apple to ruin a barrel. Well why spread the bad apples among many barrels?? Put them all in the same barrel.

100% social on the far distant outskirts of the city with poor transportation into the city is the way forward. Out of sight and out of mind.

Padre_Pio

Eric Cartman wrote: »

stop incentivising having kids as a route to free housing
stop enabling people to choose to live off the welfare state their entire lives
stop people being incentivised to choose social housing because even workers cant afford to live near their families in cities.
punish parents for being lax and expecting the state to raise their kids for them.

The actual amount of dole lifers in the country is tiny.
We're at near full employment now. Once you take away the stay at home parents, people in between jobs and people who are out of work not by choice, there's very few people left who are on the dole for fun.

Most people getting HAP and houses are working too.

Fred Cryton wrote: »

When will they learn, we are never going to "integrate". We're never going to have Jacinta over for dinner.

But when the only friends Jacinta's kids have are all from wealthy backgrounds, they're not going to consider mammy's dole life as a viable way forward.

Eric Cartman

Padre_Pio wrote: »

The actual amount of dole lifers in the country is tiny.
We're at near full employment now. Once you take away the stay at home parents, people in between jobs and people who are out of work not by choice, there's very few people left who are on the dole for fun.

Most people getting HAP and houses are working too.


But when the only friends Jacinta's kids have are all from wealthy backgrounds, they're not going to consider mammy's dole life as a viable way forward.

incorrect.

43,000 people of working age and not disabled have never made a single PRSI contribution , 62% of social housing applicants are only in receipt of welfare, 10% work only and 7% mix work and claiming welfare. If you are living beside somebody in social housing there is only a 10% chance they put in a full work day

Jinglejangle69

BanditLuke wrote: »

Yes yes we know, like winning the lottery.

Yep.

Fred Cryton

Padre_Pio wrote: »

The actual amount of dole lifers in the country is tiny.
We're at near full employment now. Once you take away the stay at home parents, people in between jobs and people who are out of work not by choice, there's very few people left who are on the dole for fun.

Most people getting HAP and houses are working too.


But when the only friends Jacinta's kids have are all from wealthy backgrounds, they're not going to consider mammy's dole life as a viable way forward.

Complete nonsense. The unemployment rate is a percentage of the workforce, not of the working age population. You need to understand the difference between the two. We have something like 20% of households of working age people where neither parent works, one of the highest in Europe. The reason for this is welfare including the house is much greater than what they could earn from low paid work. So there is a disincentive to work.



So you're going to impose Jacintas kids on the rest of our kids, all her bad habits and character traits, just for the benefit of Jacintas kids? How do my kids benefit from that? What's in it for my kids? Other than being led down a bad path by Jacintas kids?

Padre_Pio

Eric Cartman wrote: »

incorrect.

43,000 people of working age and not disabled have never made a single PRSI contribution , 62% of social housing applicants are only in receipt of welfare, 10% work only and 7% mix work and claiming welfare. If you are living beside somebody in social housing there is only a 10% chance they put in a full work day

That figure is from 2013? Have things changed in the last 8 years? Are all these people low life scroungers?

Besides whats your solution? Cut welfare? Pauper people?
How will that not lead to an increase in crime, slums, ghettoisation?

You seem to have a massive chip on your shoulder.

Dorakman

Fred Cryton wrote: »

Complete nonsense. The unemployment rate is a percentage of the workforce, not of the working age population. You need to understand the difference between the two. We have something like 20% of households of working age people where neither parent works, one of the highest in Europe. The reason for this is welfare including the house is much greater than what they could earn from low paid work. So there is a disincentive to work.



So you're going to impose Jacintas kids on the rest of our kids, all her bad habits and character traits, just for the benefit of Jacintas kids? How do my kids benefit from that? What's in it for my kids? Other than being led down a bad path by Jacintas kids?

Der da salt a da earth!

Idbatterim

very valid points made for not mixing, see with the uber leftist media here, you wouldnt even hear them made. At least in other countries in the media you will hear two sides? Here? LOL! Sure even our party of the "right" LOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLL! are pro the obscene welfare state.

imagine the hypocrite presenters on RTE who cry crocodile tears for margaret cash and co! Imagine if Sorcha had to share a class room and estate with Chardonnay! :rolleyes:

Eric Cartman

Padre_Pio wrote: »

That figure is from 2013? Have things changed in the last 8 years? Are all these people low life scroungers?

Besides whats your solution? Cut welfare? Pauper people?
How will that not lead to an increase in crime, slums, ghettoisation?

You seem to have a massive chip on your shoulder.

thats only the people who have never done a single days work, doesn't include those who gave it a weeks trial and gave up completely. Regardless of employment rates there is still a croke park sized section of society who do not work by choice...minimum.

pjohnson

Idbatterim wrote: »

very valid points made for not mixing, see with the uber leftist media here, you wouldnt even hear them made. At least in other countries in the media you will hear two sides? Here? LOL! Sure even our party of the "right" LOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLL! are pro the obscene welfare state.

imagine the hypocrite presenters on RTE who cry crocodile tears for margaret cash and co! Imagine if Sorcha had to share a class room and estate with Chardonnay! :rolleyes:

Your reverting back to your right wing/FG roots again :pac:

Padre_Pio

Idbatterim wrote: »

very valid points made for not mixing, see with the uber leftist media here, you wouldnt even hear them made. At least in other countries in the media you will hear two sides? Here? LOL! Sure even our party of the "right" LOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLL! are pro the obscene welfare state.

imagine the hypocrite presenters on RTE who cry crocodile tears for margaret cash and co! Imagine if Sorcha had to share a class room and estate with Chardonnay! :rolleyes:

There's you and one other poster arguing this point. No one else really.
Doesn't matter, it's the accepted social policy in many countries.

Sorcha does have to share a classroom with Chardonnay (nice use of names to portray social class), there's social houses in every estate.

Spanish Eyes

No I don't agree with it at all.

Sorry.

Not paying 1k a month or so mortgage to live beside someone who pays what, 50 quid a week for the same property. NOPE.

Get back to me and defend it.

Eric Cartman

Padre_Pio wrote: »

That figure is from 2013? Have things changed in the last 8 years? Are all these people low life scroungers?

Besides whats your solution? Cut welfare? Pauper people?
How will that not lead to an increase in crime, slums, ghettoisation?

You seem to have a massive chip on your shoulder.

mix only social and affordable housing outside cities.
a dutch scum village model for those with criminal convictions or who commit anti-social behaviour
cut off child benefit if your child doesnt attend school 95% of the time
cut off child benefit if your child receives a JLO
half social welfare for people who have been out of work for 4 of any 5 year period
drug and alcohol testing during signing on
cashless welfare which cannot be redeemed in cash or spent on alcohol, holidays, premium tv, cigarettes, gambling, tanning beds etc...
an intervention program which teaches girls from 14 years up that getting pregnant at that age is wasting their lives and about contraception,
remove having a child as a method to raise yourself up the social housing list.
put the people who have worked the most on top of the list.

Padre_Pio

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

No I don't agree with it at all.

Sorry.

Not paying 1k a month or so mortgage to live beside someone who pays what, 50 quid a week for the same property. NOPE.

Get back to me and defend it.

If your neighbours never bothered you and you never saw them, would you care?

Idbatterim

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

No I don't agree with it at all.

Sorry.

Not paying 1k a month or so mortgage to live beside someone who pays what, 50 quid a week for the same property. NOPE.

Get back to me and defend it.

a thousand a month mortgage? LOL! Try two thousand a month and you are in the ball park. Houses up beside nutgrove shopping centre now, market rent easily two k plus for the working poor, twenty euro a week if bothered paying on social housing, no lpt, no management fee :rolleyes:

CPTM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

stop incentivising having kids as a route to free housing
stop enabling people to choose to live off the welfare state their entire lives
stop people being incentivised to choose social housing because even workers cant afford to live near their families in cities.
punish parents for being lax and expecting the state to raise their kids for them.

Agreed - But the electorate contains a growing number of voters which believe in free handouts. This will always be the case for as long as uneducated people have more children than educated people.

Those who can implement what you're talking about will therefore never get into power despite how much it makes sense. It's a bug in the democratic system. The sad thing is it's exponential, all those feral kids you see running around, littering and aggressively screaming at each other or strangers on the street (and that's on good days) will all have many kids of their own, while the number of children born from the working population will dwindle. Statistically speaking, this is as good as it gets!

Idbatterim

pjohnson wrote: »

Your reverting back to your right wing/FG roots again :pac:

the housing situation is a disgrace! but "renting " out a housing stock worth billions, for a few cents. While many working people are fcuked, is a big part of the problem and it is a moral disgrace, that point isnt even up for debate! (and yes, I am aware some people in social housing work...

Dorakman

Padre_Pio wrote: »

If your neighbours never bothered you and you never saw them, would you care?

I think it’s the principle of the scenario that bothers a lot of people.

Padre_Pio

Dorakman wrote: »

I think it’s the principle of the scenario that bothers a lot of people.

The argument has been done to death. I'm surprised this thread is still open.

I don't know why people bother. If it's so good, then why isn't everyone at it? Maybe because there's more to life than a house.

Calhoun

My understanding is the reason we mix people in society is to make sure we don't ghettoize our poorer in society and we have better integration. We only have to look at the Ballymun flats ect in years gone by for how bad it can get.

In theory it makes allot of sense but the thing with Ireland is we don't manage our social housing stock or tenants very well. So we let problems fester and get out of hand when they don't need to be.

So its not a matter of being fair as it make sense as society to do this but we must ensure that the right supports and monitoring is put in place.

CPTM

It would be great to see a reducing dole payout figure (with means testing), but the policy makers will be voted out if they go for it. The last thing we want is for that side of society to start voting - Sinn Fein would definitely have a majority then! It's better from a policy maker's perspective to keep that side of society happy enough not to vote, while trying to implement as many policies as possible to help those who work. That balance is hard and we saw that in the last election.

Edit.. Sorry for going off topic.

Spanish Eyes

Idbatterim wrote: »

a thousand a month mortgage? LOL! Try two thousand a month and you are in the ball park. Houses up beside nutgrove shopping centre now, market rent easily two k plus for the working poor, twenty euro a week if bothered paying on social housing, no lpt, no management fee :rolleyes:

I know. It is driving most of us paying through the nose independently absolutely mad, but no one can say it. But I will.

I detest this 20% rule. It makes a mockery of those who save and pay their own way.

So have I been banned now?

Dorakman

Calhoun wrote: »

My understanding is the reason we mix people in society is to make sure we don't ghettoize our poorer in society and we have better integration. We only have to look at the Ballymun flats ect in years gone by for how bad it can get.

In theory it makes allot of sense but the thing with Ireland is we don't manage our social housing stock or tenants very well. So we let problems fester and get out of hand when they don't need to be.

So its not a matter of being fair as it make sense as society to do this but we must ensure that the right supports and monitoring is put in place.

So it’s the people who are the problem?

endacl

I’d be all in favour of it if the conception of the ‘foweva home’ had never become a thing.

Foweva homes are for rescue dogs. Not for healthy adults who should aspire to pay their way.

Padre_Pio

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I know. It is driving most of us paying through the nose independently absolutely mad, but no one can say it. But I will.

I detest this 20% rule. It makes a mockery of those who save and pay their own way.

So have I been banned now?

Write to your TD. Ranting on the internet isn't going to change a thing.

Spanish Eyes

What is the latest figure for arrears of rent in social housing?

What are Councils doing about it?

Not much. Let those of us with a mortgage try to get away with a month's arrears and see what will happen.

The incentive is not there for social housing tenants is it? Has to be said.

Spanish Eyes

Padre_Pio wrote: »

Write to your TD. Ranting on the internet isn't going to change a thing.

They fought for this. Nothing to see here. And nothing will change their view either.

Calhoun

Dorakman wrote: »

So it’s the people who are the problem?

Yes and no, there are bad people who have taken support provided from the government and blackened the name of anyone who needs support. Just look at allot of the early responses to this thread, that is a product of the current system.

However they aren't solely responsible the local government who wash their hands of tenants as soon as they are housed regardless of what happens are the problem.

If we want a system that works we need to make sure it is managed correctly.

Dorakman

Calhoun wrote: »

Yes and no, there are bad people who have taken support provided from the government and blackened the name of anyone who needs support. Just look at allot of the early responses to this thread, that is a product of the current system.

However they aren't solely responsible the local government who wash their hands of tenants as soon as they are housed regardless of what happens are the problem.

If we want a system that works we need to make sure it is managed correctly.

Why not move troubled tenants to dedicated estates?

Padre_Pio

Calhoun wrote: »

Yes and no, there are bad people who have taken support provided from the government and blackened the name of anyone who needs support. Just look at allot of the early responses to this thread, that is a product of the current system.

However they aren't solely responsible the local government who wash their hands of tenants as soon as they are housed regardless of what happens are the problem.

If we want a system that works we need to make sure it is managed correctly.

It's a case of people taking advantage of a system, and the people in control of the system not giving a damn. We're not unique in this, it happens in every country.

But taking money away from people who've never worked won't make them work. It'll either make them destitute or criminals.
The government is happy to accept a level of non-participation in society. Complain to your TDs if you want this to change.

Dorakman wrote: »

Why not move troubled tenants to dedicated estates?

"Darndale: The Edge of Town"

Calhoun

Dorakman wrote: »

Why not move troubled tenants to dedicated estates?

That just builds ghettos and no-go areas. The only model im aware of that does similar is in the Netherlands where they have the container cities but I don't know how successful they are.

https://nltimes.nl/2014/05/09/container-town-rotterdams-worst-families

Dorakman

Padre_Pio wrote: »

It's a case of people taking advantage of a system, and the people in control of the system not giving a damn. We're not unique in this, it happens in every country.

But taking money away from people who've never worked won't make them work. It'll either make them destitute or criminals.
The government is happy to accept a level of non-participation in society. Complain to your TDs if you want this to change.



"Darndale: The Edge of Town"

Fine, move them there. Society shouldn’t have to suffer them.

Idbatterim

CPTM wrote: »

It would be great to see a reducing dole payout figure (with means testing), but the policy makers will be voted out if they go for it. The last thing we want is for that side of society to start voting - Sinn Fein would definitely have a majority then! It's better from a policy maker's perspective to keep that side of society happy enough not to vote, while trying to implement as many policies as possible to help those who work. That balance is hard and we saw that in the last election.

Edit.. Sorry for going off topic.

who is going to vote them out? FFG voters would be dolers in general. they lost a lot of seats, because a lot of people who would have voted for them before, are non homeowner workers , who are fcuked by the housing situation. Cant wait to see this next budget. If cutting it politically is difficult, it should be frozen for years and use any resources to help the ones that are broke and paying for this whole farce!

Padre_Pio

Dorakman wrote: »

Fine, move them there. Society shouldn’t have to suffer them.

Society is all the worse for them because of places like Darndale. Gangs start in places like this as it becomes a massive poverty trap with no escape.