Imagine rejecting a 600k house

Nermal

smelly sock wrote: »

So move people living in social housing within the M50 out to other areas? Even if generations of the same family have lived in that area? Seems like the real estate/economic version of ethnic cleansing.

Hard to know how to deal with an entitlement culture as ingrained as this.

Subsidised living in a commuter town is now a fate equivalent to the unluckiest residents of wartime Yugoslavia.

Why should society bear an additional burden (on top of funding nearly all your accommodation cost!) just so you can live near your family?

ThunbergsAreGo

smelly sock wrote: »

So move people living in social housing within the M50 out to other areas? Even if generations of the same family have lived in that area? Seems like the real estate/economic version of ethnic cleansing.

Is that not what happens to most people when buying/renting?

Again I struggle to see why those in social housing appear to have more security and rights than those who are renting or are buying their own home

katiek102010

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Every new development you see being built at the moment will have many council
tenants in them

We had that when we lived in UK. With us we were presumed to be social tenants as we were Irish and treated disgracefully by neighbours.
One screamed in our face that they had more rights to parking than we had. We actually owned our house.

The estate is now in the situation where the social housing has a large amount of the travelling community in them and houses are selling for substantially less than what we sold for

timmy_mallet

Dude89 wrote: »

Imagine being gullible enough to believe the op 600k hahaha

There are new builds around us - probably 120 or so. 12 social housing. Homes started at 450k. And the council acquired homes even had outside light fixtures installed, the private ones weren't fitted by the developer!

That's another question, I guess. To what extent do the councils furnish a newly acquired new build?

timmy_mallet

tobefrank321 wrote: »

Where does this madness end?

Council buying a number of million euro houses in the next big development in Malahide to prevent ghettoization somewhere else?

Where is the incentive to improve through getting a job and getting out of the "ghetto"?

Why bother if the council will supply you with a house even wealthy middle class can't afford.

I suppose the theory is you wouldn't need to get out of a ghetto because there wouldn't be any.

I mean, on the margins it's not very fair, but what's the alternative?

timmy_mallet

smelly sock wrote: »

So move people living in social housing within the M50 out to other areas? Even if generations of the same family have lived in that area? Seems like the real estate/economic version of ethnic cleansing.

Having the state sponsor and fund generations of the same families, of a not-insignificant proportion of the population, living in the same area just because they've lived there in the past, and not affording the same rights to others is utterly unfair to society. Will the govt. give a tax incentive to private purchases if they identify a home near their parents?

LuasSimon

Dublins housing shortage would be significantly reduced if those who dont or wont work were moved to other council properties in Longford,Roscommon, Cavan etc and the Dublin properties were used by those working and contributing to the economy of Dublin. Too many wasters are tolerated in Dublin . Do what the UK govt did , move them to cheaper locations .

Idbatterim

Moving them all out of dublin is wishful thinking... they should be paying significantly higher rent and deducted at source of needs be, use that increased income to provide more social and affordable housing etc...

Then you get all these " salt o de erth" dubs, "we want housing for our children locally " four floor apartmebt block proposed for area " no te high rise in de communiteee"

MFPM

collywobble7 wrote: »

It's not their house though...that's the point

You're well aware of the point being made, FFS.

enricoh

timmy_mallet wrote: »

There are new builds around us - probably 120 or so. 12 social housing. Homes started at 450k. And the council acquired homes even had outside light fixtures installed, the private ones weren't fitted by the developer!

That's another question, I guess. To what extent do the councils furnish a newly acquired new build?

A mate of mine is a spark on an estate nearby. The poverty spec houses are for those who buy their houses. The top spec houses are the council's/ charities.
Some of the extra spec is to negate getting sued down the line by the tenants!!

Eric Cartman

enricoh wrote: »

A mate of mine is a spark on an estate nearby. The poverty spec houses are for those who buy their houses. The top spec houses are the council's/ charities.
Some of the extra spec is to negate getting sued down the line by the tenants!!

the council prefers tiles and wood floors to carpets so often done fully throughout. The appliances they tend to stick mid range, paints are usually anti mould / easy clean more expensive plasticated paints. Overall the finish is usually quite good but as you said is done by the builder because it all has to be done. Social housing with an un mounted light fixture - that sounds like a claim when a kids eye accidentally ends up on an exposed wire etc...

The issue with giving council tenants these new A rated houses is going to come in to its own in a while, the heat recovery systems filters aren't designed for constant chain smoking , the costs of the A2W heat pump heating rockets in winter combined with a tenant likely on prepaid electricity thats going to be noticed quickly, especially since you're supposed to leave those on and let the thermostats do the work, not treat them like a boiler.

theres going to be a serious council maintenance schedule needed for these new homes and I doubt most will be allowing workmen in every 6 months to change filters and service heat pumps etc...

timmy_mallet

Eric Cartman wrote: »

the council prefers tiles and wood floors to carpets so often done fully throughout. The appliances they tend to stick mid range, paints are usually anti mould / easy clean more expensive plasticated paints. Overall the finish is usually quite good but as you said is done by the builder because it all has to be done. Social housing with an un mounted light fixture - that sounds like a claim when a kids eye accidentally ends up on an exposed wire etc...

The issue with giving council tenants these new A rated houses is going to come in to its own in a while, the heat recovery systems filters aren't designed for constant chain smoking , the costs of the A2W heat pump heating rockets in winter combined with a tenant likely on prepaid electricity thats going to be noticed quickly, especially since you're supposed to leave those on and let the thermostats do the work, not treat them like a boiler.

theres going to be a serious council maintenance schedule needed for these new homes and I doubt most will be allowing workmen in every 6 months to change filters and service heat pumps etc...

I know for a fact there were exposed and taped up live wires in the private homes and fixtures installed in the council ones on handover... I mean, probably better if you wanted yer own fixtures and not chosen by the builder.

Wooden floors! Ffs. 70eur a sqm min vs 18 for a laminate?! Christ. Glad our tax euros are paying for a nice wooden floor in our social housing.

tobefrank321

Eric Cartman wrote: »

the council prefers tiles and wood floors to carpets so often done fully throughout. The appliances they tend to stick mid range, paints are usually anti mould / easy clean more expensive plasticated paints. Overall the finish is usually quite good but as you said is done by the builder because it all has to be done. Social housing with an un mounted light fixture - that sounds like a claim when a kids eye accidentally ends up on an exposed wire etc...

The issue with giving council tenants these new A rated houses is going to come in to its own in a while, the heat recovery systems filters aren't designed for constant chain smoking , the costs of the A2W heat pump heating rockets in winter combined with a tenant likely on prepaid electricity thats going to be noticed quickly, especially since you're supposed to leave those on and let the thermostats do the work, not treat them like a boiler.

theres going to be a serious council maintenance schedule needed for these new homes and I doubt most will be allowing workmen in every 6 months to change filters and service heat pumps etc...

So potentially tens of thousands more in costs?

We probably should just round up to 1 million the cost to the taxpayer of each of these up market council houses.

Plumbthedepths

Oh how I missed the free house) dole bashing threads. Things getting back to normal on Boards.

smelly sock

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Oh how I missed the free house) dole bashing threads. Things getting back to normal on Boards.

Exactly. Discriminate against the poor.

Panch18

smelly sock wrote: »

Exactly. Discriminate against the poor.

God help them - "the poor" are so discriminated against - the poor petals.

What is a crying shame is that the people who really need help and support can't get it because the majority of the governments money is wasted on losers giving them free houses, free money and everything else free as well.

tobefrank321

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Oh how I missed the free house) dole bashing threads. Things getting back to normal on Boards.

And how I miss the "free houses for everyone" brigade.

maccored

Panch18 wrote: »

God help them - "the poor" are so discriminated against - the poor petals.

What is a crying shame is that the people who really need help and support can't get it because the majority of the governments money is wasted on losers giving them free houses, free money and everything else free as well.

whos fault is that? the 'losers' or the people who vote in the governments that give it away? I say the latter.

Sinus pain

Eric Cartman wrote: »

the council prefers tiles and wood floors to carpets so often done fully throughout. The appliances they tend to stick mid range, paints are usually anti mould / easy clean more expensive plasticated paints. Overall the finish is usually quite good but as you said is done by the builder because it all has to be done. Social housing with an un mounted light fixture - that sounds like a claim when a kids eye accidentally ends up on an exposed wire etc...

The issue with giving council tenants these new A rated houses is going to come in to its own in a while, the heat recovery systems filters aren't designed for constant chain smoking , the costs of the A2W heat pump heating rockets in winter combined with a tenant likely on prepaid electricity thats going to be noticed quickly, especially since you're supposed to leave those on and let the thermostats do the work, not treat them like a boiler.

theres going to be a serious council maintenance schedule needed for these new homes and I doubt most will be allowing workmen in every 6 months to change filters and service heat pumps etc...

All council tenants are serious chain smokers and on prepaid electricity - smh

MFPM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

the council prefers tiles and wood floors to carpets so often done fully throughout. The appliances they tend to stick mid range, paints are usually anti mould / easy clean more expensive plasticated paints. Overall the finish is usually quite good but as you said is done by the builder because it all has to be done. Social housing with an un mounted light fixture - that sounds like a claim when a kids eye accidentally ends up on an exposed wire etc...

The issue with giving council tenants these new A rated houses is going to come in to its own in a while, the heat recovery systems filters aren't designed for constant chain smoking , the costs of the A2W heat pump heating rockets in winter combined with a tenant likely on prepaid electricity thats going to be noticed quickly, especially since you're supposed to leave those on and let the thermostats do the work, not treat them like a boiler.

theres going to be a serious council maintenance schedule needed for these new homes and I doubt most will be allowing workmen in every 6 months to change filters and service heat pumps etc...

Leo's back....cliched classist rubbish.

MFPM

tobefrank321 wrote: »

But buying 500k one bed apartments and 600k houses for social housing isn't? :rolleyes:

How on earth does it make sense for people with jobs in Dublin city centre commuting long distances whereas those who don't or won't work live there.

Match the accommodation to the jobs, its a simple idea, which prevents misery all around.

How do propose to carry through this feat of social engineering, should we copy the methods of the Chinese regime in reverse, instead of clearing villages and forcing people into cities for cheap labour, we tell people who are unemployed to f@ck off out of the city and move somewhere else?

Eric Cartman

Sinus pain wrote: »

All council tenants are serious chain smokers and on prepaid electricity - smh

thats not what anyone said, but smoking rates among social welfare recipients are a lot higher than the general population.

Also any new build intended for social housing is required to have a prepay capable smart meter for exactly that reason.

Sinus pain

Eric Cartman wrote: »

thats not what anyone said, but smoking rates among social welfare recipients are a lot higher than the general population.

Also any new build intended for social housing is required to have a prepay capable smart meter for exactly that reason.

I think you will find they did - also please keep in mind that not all council tenants are in receipt of social welfare I don’t know why you brought up social welfare recipients when it was council tenants that was being discussed

The issue with giving council tenants these new A rated houses is going to come in to its own in a while, the heat recovery systems filters aren't designed for constant chain smoking , the costs of the A2W heat pump heating rockets in winter combined with a tenant likely on prepaid electricity thats going to be noticed quickly, especially since you're supposed to leave those on and let the thermostats do the work, not treat them like a boiler.

MFPM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

thats not what anyone said, but smoking rates among social welfare recipients are a lot higher than the general population.

Also any new build intended for social housing is required to have a prepay capable smart meter for exactly that reason.

thats not what anyone said,

It's categorically what you implied.

but smoking rates among social welfare recipients are a lot higher than the general population.

How has this been assessed, many in the 'general population' are also in receipt of some form of welfare provision?

Eric Cartman

Sinus pain wrote: »

I think you will find they did - also please keep in mind that not all council tenants are in receipt of social welfare I don’t know why you brought up social welfare recipients when it was council tenants that was being discussed

The issue with giving council tenants these new A rated houses is going to come in to its own in a while, the heat recovery systems filters aren't designed for constant chain smoking , the costs of the A2W heat pump heating rockets in winter combined with a tenant likely on prepaid electricity thats going to be noticed quickly, especially since you're supposed to leave those on and let the thermostats do the work, not treat them like a boiler.

Over 60% of council tenants are only on welfare, a further 10% are on a mix of welfare and working. When somebody says ‘most council tenants are on welfare they are correct. When somebody makes a statement like ‘the majority of council tenants do x’ they are more than likely talking about the 70+% who are mostly/wholly reliant on the state to live.

A council house being held by somebody who works is <20% of cases , bringing that up sure you may aswell pick other edge case arguments.

cgcsb

While the poor are busy bashing the slightly poorer:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/fury-in-d%C3%A1il-at-devious-change-to-bill-to-give-super-juniors-a-salary-top-up-1.4312943

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/construction/nama-closes-bids-for-development-of-ringsend-glass-bottle-site-1.4233589

Give the plebians bread and circuses. This is why Jerry Springer/Jeremy Kyle etc. exist, it reassures poor folks that they always have someone to look down on while they are shat on from a height.

Nermal

MFPM wrote: »

How do propose to carry through this feat of social engineering, should we copy the methods of the Chinese regime in reverse, instead of clearing villages and forcing people into cities for cheap labour, we tell people who are unemployed to f@ck off out of the city and move somewhere else?

More hyperbole.

A few posts ago it was ethnic cleansing, now it's the Great Leap Forward. Get some perspective.

Subsidised housing costs money. Spending it in the most valuable areas of the country is wasteful.

Spanish Eyes

smelly sock wrote: »

Exactly. Discriminate against the poor.

The real poor are very rare in this generous country. They would mostly be those who don't have the ability to navigate the system to their utmost advantage really.

There are those living on the streets, I know that, but they often choose that route themselves, there is really no need to be poor in this country at all.

BTW, what is your definition of poverty? Plenty of middle class working people are short of money every month through paying taxes to support those in need, and paying rent/mortgage and childcare also. The forgotten cohort all the time.

LuasSimon

More and more people that work are been paid modest money not much above minimum wage , many of these people are living paycheck to paycheck. This is a growing pool of people as terms and conditions of employment are been eroded in recent years. Council housing in Dublin should be for these people, anyone not willing to work should be removed out of social housing in Dublin and housed in Longford or Rosscommon where housing costs are far lower.

Horsebox9000

Idbatterim wrote: »

Moving them all out of dublin is wishful thinking... they should be paying significantly higher rent and deducted at source of needs be, use that increased income to provide more social and affordable housing etc...

Then you get all these " salt o de erth" dubs, "we want housing for our children locally " four floor apartmebt block proposed for area " no te high rise in de communiteee"

This

A thousand times

Same people also say an apartment isn't a real family home even though the rest of the world would agree they are. So because Sheila from Kevin Street doesn't agree an apartment isn't a family home it should mean no apartments for anyone.
What about our skyline too it could hinder their view of the city as they lie in bed at 2pm thinking there is conspiracy out to get them.