alastair wrote: » That was just an 'out-of-sight-out-of mind' exercise that did nothing but brush the continuing problem under the carpet of the outer boroughs.
Nermal wrote: » That *is* solving the problem. The problem isn't the existence of junkies & scumbags, it's their proximity to areas I have to be in.
Dublin Spur wrote: » But we can all agree than Manhattan was cleaned up in the 90s/00s ? That's the main point here and the same could be done with Dublin. The danger and filth of the north inner city can be fixed - it's not impossible, as the NYC experience proves.
alastair wrote: » Once again - NY state is not NYC.
Bonniedog wrote: » Do you think you are talking to a fkn 7 year old? I've posted stats that prove that crime fell dramatically in NY as incarceration rates increased dramatically. Now, you produce your sources or just stop really. You are actually defeating your own argument as crime rates and incarceration rates in the city totally skew the overall state picture. So in other words there is even GREATER correlation between jailing and drop in crime in the boroughs than the state picture indicates. But, no doubt you will produce some evidence at some stage :-)
Tony EH wrote: » ...and to what end? Gentrification means that nobody can live in Manhattan now, unless they're uber wealthy (or "lucky" to have been born in the projects that remain standing). People who had lived in the city all of their lives suddenly couldn't after Giuliani got rid of rent controls - when costs shot through the roof - and now they're finding they can't survive in the Boroughs either. My cousin showed me a post for a one bed aparment in Brooklyn a while ago. It was 3000 a month. There are people work up to three jobs just to pay their rent and bills, in the likes of Queens. Your clensed utopia has actually been a nightmare for residents, where obscene amounts of money have to trade hands just to put a shitty roof over your head. Crime may have gone down, but so has ordinary people's ability to rent an apartment and they can forget about owning one. The "NYC experience" operates on more than the single level you have in your head. Has it been worth the trade off? Many New Yorkers I know, my age, older and younger, who's families/friends have been scattered far and wide would say no.
Dublin Spur wrote: » The point is that cities can be cleaned up Dublin can be cleaned up But nothing is being done - there's no plan The north inner city has been a kip since the establishment of the state and it still is nearly 100 years later, 100 yards from O'Connell St is a ghetto, It's plain wrong in my opinion.
alastair wrote: » You’ve demonstrated you don’t understand the north inner city whatsoever. You think that it needs more private housing, when the vast majority of housing in the area is already private. You have no idea what’s going on with regard to urban renovation in the area, and you hold some bizarre belief that city council tenants shouldn’t be allowed remain living in the city, and rather should be shipped off to some suburban sink estate to appease your particular sensibilities. As someone who chooses to live in the said ‘ghetto’, and who can differentiate between council tenants and those who actually choose to cause grief for their fellow citizens, I’d have to say your ideas about society are pretty distorted, and not in any way useful. Suggest you stop being afraid of being around people with a lower income to yourself, or substance abuse problems, and realize they’ve as much right to be part of the city as you have. Then you might be able to focus on the actual problems of anti-social behavior by a minority of the city’s population.
Dublin Spur wrote: » I think its a shame that you're making this personal, accusing me of different things. You don't know me, therefore you know know that I do voluntary work in the community but I suppose you can say what you like. All I have ever done is comment on the environment that surrounds me every single day. I work beside Foley St / Talbot St. The danger and filthiness of the north inner city is a fact, not an opinion. Why should I not voice my disappointment and embarrassment regarding this part of the city ? If I did't love my city I would't care. Its shocking to see how bad it is between the open drug dealing, chronic littering, petty crime and general anti-social threatening behavior. Nothing has changed over the years which is why I can only conclude that nothing is being done to tackle the issue. Wouldn't it be nice to have O'Connell St as the proud focal point of the city instead of a shabby dangerous and filthy thoroughfare. Times Square was once like that but they sorted it out. They can sort Dublin out too but nobody seems to be doing anything about it.
alastair wrote: » It’s a pity that you equate a response to your posts with something ‘personal’. I’ve done nothing but engage with your ideas, laid down in text. Fair play for whatever voluntary work you do, but it doesn’t negate the flawed posts you make. Plenty is being done, as already pointed out to you, but if you close your eyes to it, or suggest that residents be moved out simply because they happen to live in local authority housing, then the problem is more about your perception than the actual facts on the ground. You’re entitled to your perception of course, but anyone else is equally entitled to point out it is wrong.
Dublin Spur wrote: » Wouldn't it be nice to have O'Connell St as the proud focal point of the city instead of a shabby dangerous and filthy thoroughfare. Times Square was once like that but they sorted it out. They can sort Dublin out too but nobody seems to be doing anything about it.
Tony EH wrote: » Personally speaking, I don't ever want to see O'Connell Street get even remotely like Times Square, or the new 42nd Street (Disneyland). Both are bloody awful.
alastair wrote: » O‘Connell street isn't even particularly littered, let alone 'filthy'.
Ste- wrote: » Not with litter but with the miscreants of society it is.
MysticMonk wrote: » The net result of inter-generational welfare dependency and "social" housing..
MysticMonk wrote: » The net result of inter-generational welfare dependency and "social" housing..and still the various governments and campaigners want to give them more free money and more free houses.
Dublin Spur wrote: » I've no real problem with that, its always going to be a factor of society to some extent. I just have an issue with it being so close to the country's main thoroughfare. Move the problem away from the tourists and shoppers and clean up the area. It would be amazing to see the area for fill it's full potential. Living so close to O'Connell St should be a privilege, like living beside Oxford St in London is. You don't find the same squalor beside Oxford Street as you do beside O'Connell St. I'm pretty sure there were slums in the Oxford Street area once upon a time but they sorted it out because it was the right thing to do for the city. We have never tackled this issue in Dublin and it doesn't look like we are close to doing so any time soon. I guess we just have to put up with it and occasionally moan about it on internet message boards
Dublin Spur wrote: » You don't find the same squalor beside Oxford Street as you do beside O'Connell St. I'm pretty sure there were slums in the Oxford Street area once upon a time but they sorted it out because it was the right thing to do for the city.
Lux23 wrote: » I am in that exact same situation, Marty but at the same time, I firmly believe social housing should be a part of every new estate so we don't create pockets of poorly resourced areas where the social ills of poverty become the norm. I am an example of someone who grew up in a council-owned house in a private estate when we first moved in some of our neighbours turned their noses up at us and had the same silly attitude as you do. But both my parents worked, they just didn't earn enough to buy their own home and they certainly weren't living for free! Thirty years later, I wish this option was available for me. So Marty, why not write to your local representatives and ask them when there will be an affordable housing option for you in your area? Because believe me, moaning about those living in council houses is exactly what politicians want to hear because it takes the onus off them to get off their asses and do something about the housing crisis that is affecting you just like those on the streets.
strandroad wrote: » Lots of social housing and methadone clinics located in the city centre in comparison to other cities.
wakka12 wrote: » I agree. But 100% social housing blocks should not be practically filling the city centre. Social housing off stephens green, st patricks cathedral, charlemont, should be for the reserve of people who can afford such valuable space. Those least contributing to society should not be occupying the most important land in the city. Social housing should, as you say be part of a mixed income development, in areas outside the CBD but with good transport connections. Areas of similar distance to phisborough, rathmines, harolds cross, are ideal areas for social housing
Lux23 wrote: » But it is there already? Are you saying we knock it all down? As time goes on and they age, then yes I think they should be sold off to the highest bidder but with the proviso that a certain percentage is for affordable housing, not necessarily social housing, but affordable. I don't want Dublin turning into a place where only the rich can live, f*** that.
