Buying next to Social House MOD WARNING POST #118

jimmycrackcorm

bubblypop wrote: »

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.

Chicken and egg - why was there discrimination towards social housing tenants?

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

Lots of council estates were ok - and even more so once people were allowed to buy out the council. The reason they haven't worked was down to a failure to actually deal with the problem tenants. After all the council has to house them. If there was an anti-social policy so that the council would remove problem tenants to leave them homeless, there would be barely any issues.

People generally don't appreciate anything they get for free.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

Why so sarcastic?
I understand that people have invested in their property, so? What does that have to do with social tenants?

B.A._Baracus

bubblypop wrote: »

every house purchase in an estate anywhere.

Of course. But only a fool would ignore facts.
Like I dunno, what's the chances of moving next door to Jimmy Scumbag who never worked a day in his life in a lovely private housing area that costs 400k to buy or a housing estate with assigned social housing.

You weigh up things. You look at potential pitfalls. We are not talking about forking out 800 euro on a TV here. It's a major decision.

Colonel Claptrap

bubblypop wrote: »

every house purchase in an estate anywhere.

I counted. I've lived in 9 houses/apartments over the years. 2 were in council estates.

Can you guess which 2 were a nightmare to live in?

Over the years I have been mugged, burgled, threatened with violence and had 2 bikes stolen.

That's quite the dice roll.

Gatling

[Deleted User] wrote: »

True. Except in fully private estates the people there have invested in their property. .

And just as many owners can be trouble makers and bring places down .
The majority of people in social housing actually work and look after their homes ,there's owners who don't give a fly feck about anyone else either and your stuck with then for life

Posting a video from jobstown is nothing

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

Why so sarcastic?
I understand that people have invested in their property, so? What does that have to do with social tenants?

If you're able to work and save and meet the criteria to get a mortgage, you are less likely to be a social deviant. Not a guarantee that you'll be a great neighbor, but you at least demonstrated the discipline required to buy a house, assuming your parents didn't buy it for you.

Like someone said above, it's two different sets of dice. I'd rather take my chances on the random private buyer versus the random social housing family. I base this on my significant experience of both groups.

Eric Cartman

Gatling wrote: »

And just as many owners can be trouble makers and bring places down .
The majority of people in social housing actually work and look after their homes ,there's owners who don't give a fly feck about anyone else either and your stuck with then for life

Posting a video from jobstown is nothing

62% depend only on social welfare , you've seen me post the stats 50+ times, lets not drag that inaccurate fact back up.

10% of people in social housing work full time,

it would only be fair to say that a majority of those in social housing are unemployed and only a tiny percentage work full time.

RandRuns

I deal with a lot of social housing developments, private developments, and mixed developments, and their inhabitants, through my work.

Here's my 2 cents.

The majority of private developments are great. You'll get the odd troublemaker, but that's to be expected. If the troublemaker is a renter, you can almost always reign them in by having a word with the landlord. In the (extremely rare in my experience) event the troublemaker is an owner, it can be more difficult, however, if someone is paying a mortgage in a private estate, they rarely have the time or energy to be too much of a @sshole - it's usually just being a bad neighbour, rather than outright scumbaggery.

The majority of mixed developments are great. You'll get the odd troublemaker, but that's to be expected. If the troublemaker is in one of the private houses, see above. If the troublemaker is in one of the social houses, it's a different kettle of fish. If the house is owned by an AHB, you have some chance - the AHB's vary in their response to complaints of anti-social behaviour, from excellent to poor, depending on the local rep, the area, and the type of housing, but you will almost always find they will do something - and in some cases, they can be very effective.
If the owner is the council, you're screwed. Councils will, in most cases, do nothing about anti-social behaviour, and their tenants know this. If you are in a mixed estate, with the council controlling the social houses, and an absolute scumbag (and probably 5 of his cousins) are fighting, drinking, breaking windows, racing cars, dealing drugs etc. then it's pretty much tough luck. Sell up (probably at a huge loss) or suck it up.

Many social housing only developments are great, but the chances of there being troublemakers is somewhere between high, and almost certain.
If it is an AHB development, they will try to keep it under some kind of control (because somebody is responsible for keeping that asset at a certain value) but if it's a council estate, then it is only the luck of the draw that keeps things in check. I know of lots of social housing developments that were built to a very high standard, with every amenity, that turned into the wild west within months. I know of other lovely social housing developments with no problems, but they are a rare beast indeed.

Sam W

We live in a typical middle class new development. There are more than 200 new houses in the area. Most of them are house owners and with only two or three rented to students/professionals (no public transport available around).

There's one house on our street who has kids and teenagers running around all day long, pressing doorbells, shouting to other people and trying to scare dogs. Guards were called more than once. They never arse'd. They never seem to be in school.

It only came into our attention recently that they are from social housing.

I'm more pissed that the government would spend more than 500K on a social housing and hand them over to random rubbish people, while everyone else works their arse off the mortgage.

Colonel Claptrap

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

I counted. I've lived in 9 houses/apartments over the years. 2 were in council estates.

Can you guess which 2 were a nightmare to live in?

Over the years I have been mugged, burgled, threatened with violence and had 2 bikes stolen.

That's quite the dice roll.

sure we can all do this....
I have lived in approx 15 houses/flats over the years, 2 were in council housing.
I never had any issues in the council estates, I have been burgled (twice) had my car stolen, and had extremely anti social neighbours, none of which occured in council estates.

LasersGoPewPew

Social housing is the reason why we didn't buy in the Phoenix Park Racecourse when we were searching last year. The Clonbern apartments were built in 2019. Subsequently, a block of 88 apartments was built beside it. It was purchased by a housing charity and handed to Fingal CoCo. I thought Clonbern were nice little apartments but I'm soo thankful I didn't start searching prior to 2020 or I would have purchased one. It would absolutely sicken me that those who never work/won't work a day in their lives would get a new apartment for potentially nothing while we worked hard or achieve our education and frugally saved for a deposit:mad:

LasersGoPewPew

LasersGoPewPew wrote: »

Social housing is the reason why we didn't buy in the Phoenix Park Racecourse when we were searching last year. The Clonbern apartments were built in 2019. Subsequently, a block of 88 apartments was built beside it. It was purchased by a housing charity and handed to Fingal CoCo. I thought Clonbern were nice little apartments but I'm soo thankful I didn't start searching prior to 2020 or I would have purchased one. It would absolutely sicken me that those who never work/won't work a day in their lives would get a new apartment for potentially nothing while we worked hard or achieve our education and frugally saved for a deposit:mad:

I don't know what is worse, those who behave that way or those that clearly champion those that do.

ahbell

Just gone sale agreed on a 4 bed semi-d in a new development and this thread filling me with a bit of worry to be honest!
Generally speaking would the social housing be spread through a development or kept to say the lower priced houses on the site? Also if the agent doesn't disclose which houses are social is there any other way of finding out?

Jimbob1977

The legislation is known as Part V

Developers are obliged to reserve 10% of housing for social housing.

In the past, there was a way for developers to escape the clause.

They would give the Council a small piece of land. This small parcel of land would contain all the social housing.

The principal site could remain 100% private and exclusive!! I believe this loophole was shut down.

Recently, Approved Housing Bodies like Cluid or Cooperative Housing Ireland (CHI) have started to gobble up properties..

Recently, CHI bought an entire street on a new Limerick estate.

https://www.limerickleader.ie/news/home/600130/forty-six-limerick-homes-sell-for-11m.html

mariaalice

https://cooperativehousing.ie/about-co-operative-housing-ireland/

operative housing sector as a solution to housing need. The Association has an over forty-five year track record in forging innovative partnerships between communities and the public and private sectors. Examples of expertise in project delivery include:

Avondale Park, Fingal: in partnership with Fingal County Council, Co-operative Housing Ireland have managed the planning, design and delivery of 216 state-of-the-art new homes alongside a purpose built child and family service.

Riverside, Loughlinstown: Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown: on a site provided by Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council, we developed 49 new apartments in a landmark new building. The development includes a communal room that is used by the community as a library and for after-school clubs and social events

Townsend Street, Dublin City Centre: on a site provided by SIPTU, we delivered 19 new apartments in an area of high housing demand. This second phase of the development encloses a shared a courtyard area with high quality public art.

Auburn Lodge, Killiney: Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown: as part of the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government’s Capital Advance Leasing Facility (CALF), we completed an unfinished housing development. The project has provided 31 new apartments in an area where housing affordability remains challenging.

Provide affordable housing its not exactly the same thing.

jimmycrackcorm

LasersGoPewPew wrote: »

It would absolutely sicken me that those who never work/won't work a day in their lives would get a new apartment for potentially nothing while we worked hard or achieve our education and frugally saved for a deposit:mad:

I have no problem with the state providing social housing for people who need it. I just don't like that nothing gets done about A) anti-social tenants and the fact that more housing could be provided if the councils actually built whole estates themselves much cheaper than expensive private housing - which they could do if they actually did (A).

jrosen

ahbell wrote: »

Just gone sale agreed on a 4 bed semi-d in a new development and this thread filling me with a bit of worry to be honest!
Generally speaking would the social housing be spread through a development or kept to say the lower priced houses on the site? Also if the agent doesn't disclose which houses are social is there any other way of finding out?

No way of knowing 100%. However I figured ours out because there were some houses not listed for sale when the development opened. There was a map in the sales office and every house was listed apart from 5.

RandRuns

ahbell wrote: »

Just gone sale agreed on a 4 bed semi-d in a new development and this thread filling me with a bit of worry to be honest!
Generally speaking would the social housing be spread through a development or kept to say the lower priced houses on the site? Also if the agent doesn't disclose which houses are social is there any other way of finding out?

Normally these days the AHB or council insist on "pepper potting" the social housing - meaning spreading it randomly around the development, however this doesn't always work in practice because of site design and layout, etc.
There are ways and means of finding out, but not for most private buyers I'm afraid.

Grant Stevens

Sam W wrote: »

I'm more pissed that the government would spend more than 500K on a social housing and hand them over to random rubbish people, while everyone else works their arse off the mortgage.

The irony is that the private buyer is paying for both their own property (via mortgage, etc) and for the social property (via taxation). It's actually incredible when you think about it.

Richard Hillman

Social housing is a different beast to what it was. I grew up in social housing. It used to be for normal people that are out of reach for buying property.

Now social housing is for the people who scream loudest in the office and they are not the sort you want to live beside.

My road has about 20 houses and is quite an old estate, so the original demographic are dieing off. Of the last 3 new comers on the road in the last couple of years, 2 are absolute vermin and 1 is decent family. The decent family have a child with a disability so they were high on the priority list.

It's the same for the whole estate. Every time a new family move in, you know all about it. We have a pact with our neighbours never to sell to the council.

If you are getting a new neighbour beside you that come from the council, the odds are stacked that they won't be pleasant people.

Gatling

Grant Stevens wrote: »

The irony is that the private buyer is paying for both their own property (via mortgage, etc) and for the social property (via taxation).

Social tenants pay taxes too (shocking isn't) unlike our recently registered posters

Nika Bolokov

Dont buy.

Shouldn't have to have even a sliver of doubt in your mind if your spending 500k on a house.

Gatling

Richard Hillman wrote: »

It's the same for the whole estate. Every time a new family move in, you know all about it. We have a pact with our neighbours never to sell to the council.

Why ,
If you or your neighbors decide your selling up why would it matter who's or whats buying the house your or the neighbor is selling ,

Makes zero sense

Gatling

Gatling wrote: »

Social tenants pay taxes too (shocking isn't) unlike our recently registered posters

What's the unemployment rate amongst those in social housing?

LasersGoPewPew

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I have no problem with the state providing social housing for people who need it. I just don't like that nothing gets done about A) anti-social tenants and the fact that more housing could be provided if the councils actually built whole estates themselves much cheaper than expensive private housing - which they could do if they actually did (A).

Exactly. I have no problem either. They need to handle anti-social behaviour with an iron fist. Social housing shouldn't be for life. Social housing should be only a temporary measure of no longer than 5 years. Unfortunately, most government agencies outside of revenue are highly inefficient. I have seen small projects taking significantly longer to complete by councils than those by private business. Looking at the scandal of the national children's hospital, it's likely that developers contracted by councils to build houses would seek claims for 'extra costs' like BAM have

Dr Turk Turkelton

Gatling wrote: »

Why ,
If you or your neighbors decide your selling up why would it matter who's or whats buying the house your or the neighbor is selling ,

Makes zero sense

I sold a house three years ago that I had lived in until 2012 and I got on great with the neighbours.
It was at a time when the council were buying houses hand over fist in private estates.
I promised the neighbours either side not to sell to the council and I kept my word.
I'm still friends with both ex neighbours.

Graham

Mod Note

any more attempts to turn this thread into a general social housing basing will not end well.

Sweeping generalisations are neither accurate or helpful.

Richard Hillman

Richard Hillman wrote: »

If you are getting a new neighbour beside you that come from the council, the odds are stacked that they won't be pleasant people.

Disgusting and wrong.

Richard Hillman

Richard Hillman wrote: »

If you are getting a new neighbour beside you that come from the council, the odds are stacked that they won't be pleasant people.

I must be very lucky then, as all my council neighbours have worked out fine.

Meanwhile, the wagon who owns the house next door is still blaring the music full blast. Its been almost four hours, now.

Is the social housing conversation over or isn't it?