Find out what % of an estate is social housing

JCN12

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121185635#Comment_121185635

Careful now, that might be prejudice against drug dealers.

BlueSkyDreams

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121185231#Comment_121185231

Social estates do have more anti social behaviour than private estates.

Its untrue to claim otherwise.

The Gards spend much more time investigating anti social behaviour in Ballymun than they do in Ballsbridge.

That said, what I personally find frustrating is the councils insistance that private developers should build mixed developments and give 10% or 20% to social, but on the odd occasion that the council bothers their ass to actually build an estate or complex, they dont enable a mixed development themselves by putting 20% of homes on the market for non social tenants to purchase.

If we want mixed developments, it should work both ways.

The council are there to serve all residents, not just those on low or no incomes and the housing crisis isnt confined to those on the social.

If we want to live in a mixed social society, we need to enable it.

And that starts with govt policy.

Ezeoul

That said, what I personally find frustrating is the councils insistance that private developers should build mixed developments and give 10% or 20% to social, but on the odd occasion that the council bothers their ass to actually build an estate or complex, they dont enable a mixed development themselves by putting 20% of homes on the market for non social tenants to purchase.

Kilcarbery Grange, Clondalkin.

RichardAnd

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121185231#Comment_121185231

Simply because you deem something prejudiced does not make it so. In the case of the argument that I put forward (namely that the current model of provision of social housing is both financially unsustainable and unfair to those who pay for it) is not in any way bigoted. I make no judgement on anyone in social housing. I care about the facts.

I don't think that anyone is complaining about the concept of social housing in and of itself. I don't want to see people made homeless. The issue is that the current model is failing to house people, and succeeding to drive up the cost of accommodation for those who should be able to house themselves. The latter, ironically, puts more strain on the system for obvious reasons.

There is no silver bullet to the housing crisis. We need candid, adult discussion of the issues, but all we get is "build more houses" or "the government needs to...". Social housing, immigration and any number of other proscribes topics are elephants in the room, and I prefer not to ignore problems.

Again, this is not aimed at you personally, and please do not think that I'm being acrimonious, but I am sick to death to tiptoeing on eggshells to avoid offending people who are unable or unwilling to accept reality as it is.

Former Former Former

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121185562#Comment_121185562

Edit: here is an article written about Fettercairn, in Tallaght in 2007. That estate was over 20 years old by that stage and still didn't have a GP. Does this sound like a good model to return to, to you?

This always gets bandied about but it's nonsense. No one ever turned to crime and drugs because there wasn't a GP round the corner, no area ever had 80% unemployment because the pharmacy was a bit of a trek. Would opening a dental surgery stop people joyriding?

These things only happen because of the people living there.

I grew up in west Dublin in the 80s. The council never had to "put" a GP or pharmacy in my estate, they just opened. That's what private enterprises do when there's money to be made.

Under normal circumstances, a GP or pharmacist would be rubbing his hands at the prospect of being the only game in town in a large area. Particularly in areas when a huge proportion of people would be on medical cards, which was manna from heaven.

So what was it about these areas that no one wanted to take it on?

The Corporation and Councils made huge planning errors but ultimately it was the residents who turned these places into what they became. It's not a very politically correct statement but it's true and it's why people don't want social tenants next door.

Ezeoul

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121186790#Comment_121186790

No, no one ever turned to crime because there was no GP, and that's not the point, and I think you know that.

It goes to show that these estates were built, en-masse, under-funded and under-developed, and families thrown into them, and then left to rot. Totally deprived. So of course social problems arose.

The only people who want to go back to that kind of social housing model, and those who never experienced it.

But you know, I think that's what some people actually want to see. So they can look down their noses even further at social tenants.

I'm a private owner and have a social tenant living next door, and several more living around me.

So no, not everyone has the same prejudice against social tenants living next to them.

Jinglejangle69

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121184145#Comment_121184145

The majority in social housing don’t work.

mrslancaster

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121187008#Comment_121187008

What do you think happened for the thousands of people living in private estates in the 70-80's? I'd be interested to know what exactly you think private developments got from the state simply because they were private estates.

What do you mean that people were "thrown into houses and left to rot" or that SH estates were under-funded and under-developed? Deprived how? You know well that council estates got the same services - schools, street cleaning, lighting, transport, libraries, parks, community centres etc. These are provided in different locations to be used by all citizens in a particular area and anything else is provided by private business and sporting organisations. You also know that schools in many areas receive additional funding, free childcare (in place for decades) and many free or heavily subsidised social activities that simply doesn't exist in private estates.

You seem to suggest that people living in SH can't manage their own lives unless there is extra hand-holding provided by the state.

Ezeoul

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121187221#Comment_121187221

I'm sorry you're struggling to understand this, but I guess you'd have to have lived it, to get it.

And you never will, if you seriously believe that social housing estates were - or even now - are treated the same as privately owned ones.

Or if you think the mistakes of the past should be repeated.

mrslancaster

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121187273#Comment_121187273

Please tell...

Ezeoul

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121187280#Comment_121187280

Why? So you can try and shoot down everything I say? I couldn't be bothered.

The bottom line is, the old model of 100% social housing estates is not coming back anytime soon, so like my first post on this thread, I guess those who are unhappy with the current policy of integrating social housing with private housing, are just going to have to get used to it.

:)

BlueSkyDreams

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121185709#Comment_121185709

thats a private development. Not a council one.

Ezeoul

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121187302#Comment_121187302

Did you look to see who it's being developed by?

Kilcarbery Grange is a brand-new development that will consist of more than 1,000 ‘A’ rated energy efficient homes, representing the first truly mixed-tenure Strategic Housing Development which will provide social, cost rental, affordable for sale, private rental and owner-occupied accommodation.

Have a friend who has bought there. He says its roughly 40% council / Tuath, 60% private so far.

BlueSkyDreams

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121187296#Comment_121187296

Mkxed developments are broadly a good thing, as long as the social housing is in the minority.

But personally, i'd buy in a second hand estate as you are less likley to be surrounded by social.

New estates are 20% part 5 and then the council buys more on top of their allocation, so places like Cherrywood or that new one in Clondalkin can very quickly turn into social housing estates.

I dont know why people spend 800k+ on a new estate home when you could get a better built house in a settled second hand estate with no social.

Its also correct that high end developments like No 1 Ballsbridge etc have no social housing and their part 5 is transferred.

People on the social shouldnt be living in million euro apartments. Although those developments are in the minority.

The council should really build its own estates though and offer a fair percentange of them for private sale, available to everyone, not just available to social tenants.

This helps create a true mixed estate.

BlueSkyDreams

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121187310#Comment_121187310

Its built by private developers. Not by the council.

But the council are buying a large amount of the properties there, so its effectivley a social housing estate and is likley to have anti social issues, although I hope I am wrong.

40% social allocation is very high.

Ezeoul

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121187321#Comment_121187321

It's being built in partnership with SDCC on SDCC owned land. This is a true mixed estate.

But personally, i'd buy in a second hand estate as you are less likely to be surrounded by social.

Not anymore.

My estate was once a fully private one, but now has a number of council owned properties.

Nobody has been murdered in their beds or corrupted by the social tenants yet.

JCN12

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121187296#Comment_121187296

I wouldn't be so sure. Sinn Fein are on their way to government apparently, driving that juggernaut. 🤔

Former Former Former

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121187273#Comment_121187273

if you seriously believe that social housing estates were - or even now - are treated the same as privately owned ones.

You're right. They're not treated the same.

In a privately owned estate, the builder builds and sells the houses and that's it, end of transaction, and the residents just live their lives.

In social housing estates, expecting the residents to just live in their free/massively subsidised houses is "leaving them to rot" (your words). Only social housing, according to you, needs this massive and continuous level of support. Why?

The difference here is the people living in the houses. This is very emotive for you as someone who grew up in them but no one is saying every single council tenant would be a troublesome neighbour - but the probability is much, much higher.

And if you've paid a lot of money for your house in a nice area, it would be incredibly galling for someone to move in next door who got the same house for free thanks to the taxes you're paying, even if they're lovely people.

And if they're not lovely people, you're doomed.

It's a terrible policy on so many levels.

Ezeoul

No, not "massive continuous support". Just basic support. Like proper funding for schools, transport, etc.

Look, if you think building huge social housing estates would be different if it was done now, that's fine. You can believe that.

But the definition of crazy is repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results.

Former Former Former

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121187762#Comment_121187762

 Like proper funding for schools,

The schools do get proper funding. In fact, through the DEIS scheme, they get more funding, smaller class sizes and a heap of other supports that schools in less disadvantaged areas do not get.

As for transport, I am not aware of any area (in Dublin anyway) that does not have public transport - but going back to Fettercairn, Dublin Bus have had to withdraw services to west Tallaght on numerous occasions due to extreme violence and vandalism. Whose fault is that?

I never said we should go back to building huge housing estates. But the council bidding competitively with normal buyers in an open market is equally crazy.

herbalplants

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121188001#Comment_121188001

Exactly, schools in disadvantage areas get so much more than normal schools! Used to boil my blood. They get free breakfast, free lunches and free homework clubs. While the kid attending the normal schools, their parents have to make sure to prep all that for their kids before they go to school. No free lunches for normal school kids.

It is well known fact areas like Ballymun got so much money pumped, their school facilities were pumped with money. Who was discriminated there! Only kids from working families who pay for everything.

BlueSkyDreams

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121187325#Comment_121187325

It is still being delivered by the devloper, regardless of the land ownership.

You will get some council owned homes in old estates, but you wont get 20% - 40%, which is what we are getting with new builds now.

20% Part V plus additional purchases by the council so they can reduce their social wait list, at the expense of everyone that works in an average salaried job or above.

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121185609#Comment_121185609

Yep that's prejudice.

Sorry to burst your little prejudice bubble, but just because some social housing tenants behave anti socially, that doesn't mean what you seems to believe it does. You also need to take into account the amount of people who behave anti socially who don't live in social housing, and then compare.

You won't of course, because people want to believe that social housing tenants are some kind of lower life from

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121185663#Comment_121185663

The guards do, do they?

BlueSkyDreams

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121188263#Comment_121188263

Yes.

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121188305#Comment_121188305

Well, tbf, Ballsbridge isn't in anyway comparable. detached houses behind stone walls are not housing estates.

You should compare estates in Ballymun to big housing estates in Blanchardstown or Lucan.

Do you still believe guards get more anti social calls in Ballymun then Lucan or Blanchardstown?

BlueSkyDreams

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121188329#Comment_121188329

The comparison with Ballsbridge is still valid as it highlights the impact of economic wealth on anti social behaviour.

Lucan & Blanch are large mixed areas, both with a mix of social and private housing.

I dont know them well enough to comment, but i would expect they have pockets on par with Ballymun but also very low anti social areas and estates.

Guards on here could answer better though.

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121188367#Comment_121188367

Yes, guards could. So if you're not a guard, how do you know?

comparing large social housing estates in Ballymun, to Ballsbridge where there is no housing estates is comparing apples and oranges.

large private estates in Lucan and Blanchardstown are comparable.

BlueSkyDreams

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121188417#Comment_121188417

Ballsbridge has less anti social issues than Ballymun. That's still a comparison.

Lucan and Ballymun will probably be closer in terms of anti social issues. Thats also a comparison.

Former Former Former

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121188417#Comment_121188417

large private estates in Lucan and Blanchardstown are comparable.

I can't really speak to Lucan, but having lived in Dublin 15 all my life, I can assure you that the social estates of Blanchardstown are/were far, far worse than the private estates, and that the private estates were never remotely comparable to Ballymun.