Buying next to Social House MOD WARNING POST #118

Eric Cartman

Deleted User wrote: »

They already had social housing. They'd been living in the same house for over 20 years. There was no issue with the house, they just wanted a nicer area (and got it).

if thats the case then that is a disgrace them taking advantage of the illness like that.

RobertM

We moved out of a council estate last year. Whilst I agree the majority are decent hard working people there are some bad seeds that ruin it for everybody.

In our particular example, the houses were terraced. The family on the left were amazing people who we got on very well with, left the house key whilst we were away etc.

The house on the right, single mom with 4 kids. It was fine whilst they were young but during their teenage years it was chaos. Always 5-10 lads outside the house smoking weed and drinking, screaming and shouting at 12-1 am etc.. It got so bad in the end where my car was set on fire and we had to go into private renting until our mortgage got sorted.


Due to my experience I would never even consider buying around social housing. Thankfully we moved away from Dublin in a small town in Meath. Could not be happier as the estate is very quiet and everyone keeps to themselves.

Eric Cartman

RobertM wrote: »

We moved out of a council estate last year. Whilst I agree the majority are decent hard working people there are some bad seeds that ruin it for everybody.

In our particular example, the houses were terraced. The family on the left were amazing people who we got on very well with, left the house key whilst we were away etc.

The house on the right, single mom with 4 kids. It was fine whilst they were young but during their teenage years it was chaos. Always 5-10 lads outside the house smoking weed and drinking, screaming and shouting at 12-1 am etc.. It got so bad in the end where my car was set on fire and we had to go into private renting until our mortgage got sorted.


Due to my experience I would never even consider buying around social housing. Thankfully we moved away from Dublin in a small town in Meath. Could not be happier as the estate is very quiet and everyone keeps to themselves.

thats the re-occuring story. The danger years are when the primary occupant is under 35 and they're mates are still seshioning away and when the kids are teens. The issue is developments are often filled at the same stages of peoples lives so you have a 20 year phase of an estate where theres lots of teens and early 20s around and the estate becomes a war zone and doesn't lighten up till all of those 20 somethings move off to have their own kids and terrorise new estates.

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

Typical boards thread on social housing.
If there was a thread discussing any other type of minorities the way posters discuss social housing residents, it would be closed.

If this discussion was racist, it would be closed for being racist.

How profound.

Eric Cartman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

if thats the case then that is a disgrace them taking advantage of the illness like that.

Sure that was the whole purpose of my story.

If it was a case that she was renting privately and working, and her diagnosis meant she had to give up work and as a result, couldn't afford her rent, I'd say she should be at the top of the list. Absolutely.

The woman got a cancer diagnosis, and used it to cry her way through two different houses. She never got treatment, continued smoking, and died 6 years-ish after her diagnosis, from something unrelated.

The cancer diagnosis didn't affect her day-to-day life at all. But the council re-housed her twice, because she wanted a nicer area, and tormented them.

What people seem to overlook is that when someone leaves a council house (in my area at least) the council have to go in and "reset" the house back to how it was. They don't allow fittings or furniture that they haven't organised themselves. The house invariably sits unused for months between tenancies, waiting on the Council to sort it out, and anyone that was looking for housing in those areas gets knocked down the list.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If this discussion was racist, it would be closed for being racist.

How profound.

Just because residents of social houses are not a listed minority doesn't make it right to discriminate and generalise against them.
Bigoted behaviour.

Eric Cartman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

thats the re-occuring story. The danger years are when the primary occupant is under 35 and they're mates are still seshioning away and when the kids are teens. The issue is developments are often filled at the same stages of peoples lives so you have a 20 year phase of an estate where theres lots of teens and early 20s around and the estate becomes a war zone and doesn't lighten up till all of those 20 somethings move off to have their own kids and terrorise new estates.

That issue can be a roundabout though. The poster said they left their house and moved away. The council will move another young family in. And the process starts again.

My (council) estate should be full of people in their 60-70s. But what happens is the anti social behaviour gets so bad, that when anyone gets an opportunity to 'escape', they do. And their house gets given to a Professional Buzzer with a rake of kids. So when all the scumbags that are here grow up, there's another cycle of scumbags coming up right behind them.

So the estate never gets to mature.

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

Just because residents of social houses are not a listed minority doesn't make it right to discriminate and generalise against them.
Bigoted behaviour.

Ah yes, the usual 'don't point out the problems, just pretend it isn't happening' approach. Generally favoured by those not at all affected by the issues.

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

Just because residents of social houses are not a listed minority doesn't make it right to discriminate and generalise against them.
Bigoted behaviour.

I judge people's behaviour. I don't care if that's discrimination or not.

Gatling

[Deleted User] wrote: »

They already had social housing. They'd been living in the same house for over 20 years. There was no issue with the house, they just wanted a nicer area (and got it).

They can also transfer with another tenant in another area ,
You can say they didn't need to move there was obviously a reason ,
Were all entitled to move home owners , private rentals and social tenants .

This us Vs them doesn't help ,we don't want this and we don't want that ,we only want to see this and this type of person living here it doesn't help ,
Social housing needs to be better managed ,ie a manager on site 7 days a week with the power to end tenancies of know tenants for antisocial behaviour.

In our estate we've a mixture of private tenants , private owned and social tenants , three different residents committees all claiming to have the say of who and what goes on,
One group sees itself as elite homeowners , WhatsApp group ,no private tenants or social tenants , claims to speak for the whole community ,
We've a near useless play ground suitable for 3 babies only had notices posted for owners use only,

Pure nonsense rather than trying to build a coherent community that can grow and improve and maintain the estate together ,all they want to do is say we're better than them and we want to exclude people as if they don't live here .

.anon.

I honestly thought this was After Hours until I saw the hateful posts of someone who is presumably perma-banned from there (and inexplicably not perma-banned from the rest of the site too). I lived in two new private housing estates, both of which had social and affordable housing. I couldn't tell which was which. The only house where there was ever any trouble was definitely privately owned (bought by daddy). Parties every weekend, fights spilling out onto the road, guards regularly called, etc.

If you came on here and made such sweeping generalisations about greedy landlords, I'm sure your blasphemy would be dealt with promptly.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I judge people's behaviour. I don't care if that's discrimination or not.

There's nothing wrong with judging people's behaviour.

What is wrong is judging everyone who lives in social housing by the behaviour of some people that live in social housing. See the difference?

DaveyDave

The house we bought is next to a social house. Neither of them work, loads of kids and the fella genuinely has anger issues. They always have arguments, Gardai called a number of times when they're screaming at each other at 2am, they have little patience for the kids, kids always shouting, dog left outside barking all day, place stinking of weed. There's zero peace. I wouldn't have bought if I knew.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ah yes, the usual 'don't point out the problems, just pretend it isn't happening' approach. Generally favoured by those not at all affected by the issues.

Ah the usual, blame everyone because of the behaviour of a few.
Just discrimination.

DaveyDave

DaveyDave wrote: »

The house we bought is next to a social house. Neither of them work, loads of kids and the fella genuinely has anger issues. They always have arguments, Gardai called a number of times when they're screaming at each other at 2am, they have little patience for the kids, kids always shouting, dog left outside barking all day, place stinking of weed. There's zero peace. I wouldn't have bought if I knew.

Sounds exactly like my friends neighbours!
Except they own the house.

TomTomTim

bubblypop wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with judging people's behaviour.

What is wrong is judging everyone who lives in social housing by the behaviour of some people that live in social housing. See the difference?

Can you show me someone doing that? Most people are simply saying it's not worth the risk, due to a higher probability of issues. I can't remember any posts saying all people who use social housing are bad.

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with judging people's behaviour.

What is wrong is judging everyone who lives in social housing by the behaviour of some people that live in social housing. See the difference?

I currently live on a block near two council flat estates.

Let me put it this way, if you offered me a place next to a social house or not next to one, just by aggregation I would choose the latter.

jimmycrackcorm

bubblypop wrote: »

Ah the usual, blame everyone because of the behaviour of a few.
Just discrimination.

If that is the case, then why is it a policy to mix social housing with private? It would be cheaper if we just built council estates like we used to, but why do you think they don't do that now?

jimmycrackcorm

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

If that is the case, then why is it a policy to mix social housing with private? It would be cheaper if we just built council estates like we used to, but why do you think they don't do that now?

Perhaps because of the discrimination towards social housing tenants.
Surely you know of people that grew up in areas but gave other addresses when applying for jobs etc.
Mixed estates stop this.

Gatling

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

If that is the case, then why is it a policy to mix social housing with private?

Likely because they stopped building social housing and most areas don't have huge green field sites for social housing and now are reliant on private developers to build some social housing in developments,
100% social has never worked

Eric Cartman

Gatling wrote: »

Likely because they stopped building social housing and most areas don't have huge green field sites for social housing and now are reliant on private developers to build some social housing in developments,
100% social has never worked

and as people are rapidly finding out the mix of social/private has to be 10/90 or less in order for it to work, and even then it still has issues.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

That issue can be a roundabout though. The poster said they left their house and moved away. The council will move another young family in. And the process starts again.

My (council) estate should be full of people in their 60-70s. But what happens is the anti social behaviour gets so bad, that when anyone gets an opportunity to 'escape', they do. And their house gets given to a Professional Buzzer with a rake of kids. So when all the scumbags that are here grow up, there's another cycle of scumbags coming up right behind them.

So the estate never gets to mature.

While that is true of some estates, it's not true of all. Many of the much sought out areas of Dublin began life as social estates that were over time bought out by the residents originally housed there.

Crumlin and Drimnagh on the Southside would be an example of this, as would Cabra on the Northside.

Tallaght gets a slating, but some of the older council estates there are now over 40 years old, and are settled, but still get labelled as rough, no go areas.

They may not be Dublin 4, but they are not the ****holes they are often made out to be, either.

Eric Cartman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

and as people are rapidly finding out the mix of social/private has to be 10/90 or less in order for it to work, and even then it still has issues.

It's a total dice roll, that's why. You're moving people from troubled areas with inter-generational social issues into mostly private estates. You could wind up living next to true salt of the earth working class types or you could end up next to a nightmare.

And all this could be yours for your €300,000 30 year mortgage investment... don't be a bigot now, just sign the dotted line.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Tallaght gets a slating, but some of the older council estates there are now over 40 years old, and are settled, but still get labelled as rough, no go areas.

They may not be Dublin 4, but they are not the ****holes they are often made out to be, either.

https://youtu.be/QIwkBDZUfdI

B.A._Baracus

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's a total dice roll, that's why. You're moving people from troubled areas with inter-generational social issues into mostly private estates. You could wind up living next to true salt of the earth working class types or you could end up next to a nightmare.

And all this could be yours for your €300,000 30 year mortgage investment... don't be a bigot now, just sign the dotted line.

Well said.

blackvalley

DubLad69 wrote: »

Hi all,

We are in the middle of purchasing a house in a new development in a typical middle class area. It turns out that the house opposite us and the house next door are both social houses which the estate agent tried to hide from us.

I grew up in a council estate, so I'm not even sure why I am worried about it. I recently visited a development that was 100% social housing, and the place looked very run down already. And it got me worried about the who might end up moving next door.

Does anyone have experience of social housing in a new development? Or does anyone know how Kildare CC deal with anti social behaviour if it was to come to it. I know it seems very judgmental of me, I'm just worried as I am spending almost half a million on my house and all I want is peace and quiet and am just panicking a little.

The alternative is to get a house without social tenants next door but is much smaller.

I will give you three pieces of advice
1/ Run
2/ Run very fast
3/ Run very very fast.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

It's a total dice roll, that's why.

every house purchase in an estate anywhere.

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

every house purchase in an estate anywhere.

True. Except in fully private estates the people there have invested in their property. Big difference. Let me know if you need me to explain why.

Its ironic.

I'm sitting here in my privately owned living room, and I had to put my bluetooth headphones on and hook them up to my TV so I could hear it, as my next-door-neighbour who also privately owns has been blaring loud music through the living room wall since 3pm.

She couldn't give a **** who she is disturbing. She knows I've been working from home. (but I'm off today). This is the fifth time in two weeks she has done this, and it usually lasts for at least four hours. I'm keeping a record in case I end up having to take a noise disturbance case against her.

Yet my council neighbours on the other side? I never a peep out of them. Lovely people.

Nermal

bubblypop wrote: »

every house purchase in an estate anywhere.

One set of dice loaded differently to the other.