nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Council Estates

MRnotlob606

How do people here find Council Estates? or what are your experiences of them?/

I live in one atm and I find them to be quite noisy. Some the children here should be taught manners and people should know put muzzles on dogs.

Can be a strong sense of community though. There's a lot of people would help you if your stuck.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Skihunta13

limnam wrote: »

Utter nonsense.

Do you feel ripped off if the pensioner getting on the bus doesn't pay and you do?

Someone paying for bread and milk with unemployment benefit ?

You're in your position, they're in theirs. If you prefer there's join the gravy train. :rolleyes:

That pensioner probably worked their ass off when this country was poor and so had no chance to save or avail of a decent pension scheme. And now living in huge inflation times!

limnam

Skihunta13 wrote: »

That pensioner probably worked their ass off when this country was poor and so had no chance to save or avail of a decent pension scheme. And now living in huge inflation times!

Maybe they never worked a day in their life.

It's not really relevant. Everyone has different circumstances and you sholdn't be juding yours against theirs.

If you want a house for 40e a week.

Pack in your job get on the SW and the housing list.

Let us know how you get on.

limnam

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

What about the people are who able bodied, never worked a day in their lives or who pop out 4 kids expecting to be housed for life.

Or am I just referring to pensioners because I'm cruel?

Even though I never mentioned pensioners.

I brought up pensioners, the point was you're not been ripped off because they have a free bus pass are you?

Able bodied people who refuse not to work should be dealt with accordingly.

Kids or no kids.

You won't get an argument from me on that.

Skihunta13

limnam wrote: »

Maybe they never worked a day in their life.

It's not really relevant. Everyone has different circumstances and you sholdn't be juding yours against theirs.

If you want a house for 40e a week.

Pack in your job get on the SW and the housing list.

Let us know how you get on.

They more than likely did work everyday of their working life as there was no hand outs back then like there is now.
Why would i pack in my job. I earn a decent wage, work very hard for it, pay for everything myself. I was not raisedwith a silverspoon either. I was given the same opportunity in life as everyone else. I took my opportunities and did not rely on the state to fund me.

Samaris

The selling of council houses was a problem, albeit not for the very passing sensation of "that's so unfair". It was part of the house-buying act under Thatcherism and was seen as a boost to spreading wealth in terms of ability to own a valuable asset through part of the community that had little chance of it otherwise. That gives a boost to people later when it comes to, say, educating their children, and ultimately ends up good for society.

The problem is that it resulted in far less houses available for those who needed them in a new generation. And the houses that were left tended to be pretty undesirable for one reason or another (including poor access to services, to employment and/or to schools), with the better ones being bought up by tenants as was their right. Those who were left or who came into the system from a new generation, got a very raw deal.

That resulted in a massive need for new social housing and when housing -was- sold on, as housing is in general, the "first refusal" clause for the council resulted in many council houses being leased to the council from private landlords. Which is a bit daft.

It wasn't a bad idea in theory, but it really didn't work well in practice. An objection of "it's not fair, they get more help than I do!" is a pretty shallow argument against it though.

Boaty

Councils giving houses to young parents who have never worked and who's parents have never worked a day in their lives is completely wrong and is just continuing the spiral.
Giving houses to familys that have a history
of not working results in lazy attitudes therefore poor parents and results are children that in 10-15 years time are criminals.

Part 5 Social housing ( Ie 10% of a new built estate) should not be given to people who make up the labour force but decide not to work.

limnam

Skihunta13 wrote: »

They more than likely did work everyday of their working life as there was no hand outs back then like there is now.
Why would i pack in my job. I earn a decent wage, work very hard for it, pay for everything myself. I was not raisedwith a silverspoon either. I was given the same opportunity in life as everyone else. I took my opportunities and did not rely on the state to fund me.

To get a fabulous house for 40e a week.

It sounds like you think it's a great life.

It sounds like you also got lucky.

Don't pat yourself on the back too much.

limnam

Boaty wrote: »

Councils giving houses to young parents who have never worked and who's parents have never worked a day in their lives is completely wrong and is just continuing the spiral.
Giving houses to familys that have a history
of not working results in lazy attitudes therefore poor parents and results are children that in 10-15 years time are criminals.

Part 5 Social housing ( Ie 10% of a new built estate) should not be given to people who make up the labour force but decide not to work.

Wheeliebin thinks most council houses are now "owned" you can't own a council house if you don't work.

GerryDerpy

The only reason I agree with social housing is because it maintains order and prevents chaos. See the water protests for a case study on what happens if you threaten the lazy people's cushy lifestyles.

Richard Hillman

From my experience they go through peaks and troughs. You have to wait for some scumbag kids to grow to an age where they go to prison or become drug addicts.

It is amazing how difficult it is to evict these families. Out of my estate and the neighbouring estates of about 300-400 houses. If the council chucked out 2-3 families it would make a world of difference for the entire area.

Each of these families cost probably knock off about 10-20k on each property value. You should be able to sue them for your property loss.

It is genuinely a case of the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many.

limnam

GerryDerpy wrote: »

The only reason I agree with social housing is because it maintains order and prevents chaos. See the water protests for a case study on what happens if you threaten the lazy people's cushy lifestyles.

Really, as there was many people from private estates protesting here.

You know, hardworking people who would actually be hit by the charges.

If you're not working, have fck all, why would you care? You're most likley not going to have to pay them anyway.

Boaty

limnam wrote: »

Really, as there was many people from private estates protesting here.

You know, hardworking people who would actually be hit by the charges.

If you're not working, have fck all, why would you care? You're most likley not going to have to pay them anyway.

Yeah working as professional protestors.

Samaris

Funny how people only seem to know council estate residents where no-one works and they're all scamming the system. All of the people I can think of from council housing estates in my home town (generally parents of people I went to school with who lived in the council estates in the town) work pretty hard in generally low-paying jobs to provide for their families. My anecdotal evidence against someone else's anecdotal evidence, sure.

But I guess they don't count, everyone knows that only the middle class and above who work every day for a living deserve help from the State. If they're going to work in low-paying jobs, they deserve all they get, ofc.

At least society is consistent in one respect. There's always contempt for the poorer people in society.

limnam

Boaty wrote: »

Yeah working as professional protestors.

huh

I'm talking about residents, home owners and renters in private housing estates. What are you on about.

Richard Hillman

Samaris wrote: »

Funny how people only seem to know council estate residents where no-one works and they're all scamming the system.

What? How did you work that out?

limnam

Richard Hillman wrote: »

What? How did you work that out?

You should be able to figure it out by going back through the posts you thanked.

C'mon, you're a bright boy.

Berserker

limnam wrote: »

To get a fabulous house for 40e a week.

It sounds like you think it's a great life.

That is very unfair on people who have to save massive deposits and fork out €1K+ a month on mortgage repayments so they can have a home of their own. Can working people; those who will never be able to afford to a home of their own, for example available of that scheme? I grew up beside a council estate and never really had any issue with it.

limnam

Berserker wrote: »

That is very unfair on people who have to save massive deposits and fork out €1K+ a month on mortgage repayments so they can have a home of their own. Can working people; those who will never be able to afford to a home of their own, for example available of that scheme?

I'm not sure if the scheme still exists, but the one that was available.

A friend of mine who worked full time in a bank on a decent enough salary was able to buy one on the scheme.

So I guess the answer is yes? you would have to check your own circumstances against the scheme.

Pkiernan

Peregrine wrote: »

There are plenty of decent people living in them. However, it has been proven time and again that 100% social housing areas don't work. On top of a larger amount of anti-social behaviour than private housing, they foster stigmas and divides. Which, again, feed back into the causes of anti-social behaviour.

Mixing social housing with private housing by making developers set aside 10-20% of units for local councils to purchase is definitely the way forward.

Ecellent way to proliferate criminal activity.

Richard Hillman

limnam wrote: »

You should be able to figure it out by going back through the posts you thanked.

C'mon, you're a bright boy.

Nope. Haven't seen anybody say that the only people they know from council estates are unemployed and scamming the system. It was a made up argument and passive aggressive trolling to muddy the thread,

Samaris

I can see several on this and the last page. Maybe we'll read them differently, but that note about having mixed social housing with private housing being a good way to "proliferate criminal activity" (presumably the criminal activity of being poorer than other residents of the estate) is a lovely example.

end of the road

Richard Hillman wrote: »

From my experience they go through peaks and troughs. You have to wait for some scumbag kids to grow to an age where they go to prison or become drug addicts.

It is amazing how difficult it is to evict these families. Out of my estate and the neighbouring estates of about 300-400 houses. If the council chucked out 2-3 families it would make a world of difference for the entire area.

Each of these families cost probably knock off about 10-20k on each property value. You should be able to sue them for your property loss.

It is genuinely a case of the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many.

why should You be able to sue them for your property value loss. not only would it be wasting court time as the money would be unrecoverible, but property can go down as well as up in value, you know this when you buy property (or at least you should)
what if your property goes down in value due to other forces such as the market? should you be able to sue the banks/government/whoever should your property value go down because of economic forces? as much as it might be nice, we have to think in terms of reality and practicality here. don't get me wrong, the value going down is a kick in the teeth. but that's the gamble we take when we buy property.
absolutely there should be somewhere that problem families can be put, that the resources could be concentrated fully on them, meaning they don't cause the rest of the people of the country trouble.

limnam wrote: »

Really, as there was many people from private estates protesting here.

You know, hardworking people who would actually be hit by the charges.

If you're not working, have fck all, why would you care? You're most likley not going to have to pay them anyway.

indeed. unfortunately there is a mentality that only those on the dole protest things. it seems to come from those who support whatever is being protested against, such as the water charges.

Boaty wrote: »

Yeah working as professional protestors.

no, working in actual jobs. again i'm having to state the obvious that not everyone works 9 to 5, but of course you know this. reality doesn't allow for a nice quick snappy little soundbite though.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

People working low paid jobs and trying to help themselves deserve all the state support they can get. People who won't work, who use their reproductive organs to ensure state support in ways of extortionate children's allowances benefits and social housing while doing nothing to help themselves should be left to their own devices.

Skylinehead

Skihunta13 wrote: »

My point is as soon as you introduce council houses into a private estate you seriously devalue all houses in that estate. House should gain in value.

Why exactly?

Markcheese

GerryDerpy wrote:

As said above 100% council housing is a disaster. The risk of getting multiple scum families on the same street is too high.

Is that not just a " sink estate" policy. Chuck all the problem cases into one estate.. And gradually move the rest of the families out..

end of the road

LexieOnRale wrote: »

People working low paid jobs and trying to help themselves deserve all the state support they can get.

agreed.

LexieOnRale wrote: »

People who won't work, who use their reproductive organs to ensure state support in ways of extortionate children's allowances benefits and social housing while doing nothing to help themselves should be left to their own devices.

can't be done. it's just not practical due to the fact there are children involved who didn't ask to be born (removing the children isn't practical either due to cost and resources)
there is the potential risk for greater crime when people are left with no supports who need them, and you would also be punishing people who for the most part wouldn't be bad people, but for whatever reason are just unemployable.
the amount of people you would be talking about are so small in numbers anyway. we aren't ever going to have a 0 unemployment/100% employment rate, it would actually be undesirable anyway in terms of workers as wages could be pushed down further then they all ready are.

limnam

LexieOnRale wrote: »

People working low paid jobs and trying to help themselves deserve all the state support they can get.

Wheeliebin30 stated most council houses are now owned by the people living in them, you can't buy a council house unless you're in full time employment like any other mortgage. So it seems like the vast majority are people who deserved to be looked after. Glad to see you're coming around on this.

LexieOnRale wrote: »

People who won't work, who use their reproductive organs to ensure state support in ways of extortionate children's allowances benefits and social housing while doing nothing to help themselves should be left to their own devices.

Working class people have kids
Middle class people have kids.
upper class people have kids.

But you think one set is doing it just for a house? nonsense.

Do you really think having 3/4 kids and multiplying your children's allowance is it profitable business? You obviously don't have kids. The add on per child on SW doesn't come anywhere close enough to the real cost of raring a child.

Maybe we should stop giving children's allowance to bono and Micheal O'Leary and people who genuinely don't need the money.

But lets just keep having a crack at "poor" people for having children. The neck of them.

limnam

Skylinehead wrote: »

Why exactly?

It's a one way ladder, only goes up!

:pac:

PMBC

GerryDerpy wrote: »

As said above 100% council housing is a disaster. The risk of getting multiple scum families on the same street is too high.

Larger schemes have bigger probability of attracting problem families in numbers. Smaller schemes less chance; but the problem family/ies will appear somewhere in the system. Historically most councils ignored the problems created or were poor at dealing with them.
My experience over ten years designing and constructing has been that good layouts i.e. dividing up schemes of even twenty/thirty into tow or three areas together with high quality construction via strong site supervision went a long way to mitigating the problem. Quality improved a lot in recent years but the dead hand of the department officials even in late noughties often militated against that. One technical adviser wanted only terraces of houses - denser, therefore slightly lower cost - as his family 'had to bring the coal in the front door'!

PMBC

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

That's not allowed anymore.

Every new build has to be 10% at least.

So you pay full whack mortgage of probably 1200 euro a month while your neighbour pays 40 euro a week for the exact same house.

Excellent.

Or if you're renting, you pay 1200-1400 per month with no future ownership!