Tombo2001 wrote: » Come on.....its the 1980s..... unemployment is 25%.....there's hunger strikes and bombs going off.....lets plan our strategy for a time when Dublin is a prime European commerical centre? I dont think so. Hindsight is wonderful.
wakka12 wrote: » Also I think it really just highlights the problem when you know that Dublin GDP is amongst the highest of any urban area in europe, it is 20th most economically powerful urban area in the EU. Yet Dublins population is about 0.4% of the EU population. It punches well above its weight when compared to the population. It is an incredibly wealthy city in world terms, yet many parts of the north city centre could pass for a much much poorer nation like macedonia or something. It is because the richest Dubliners live in far suburbs. And the city centre is occupied by council housing
Dr Crayfish wrote: » Well yeah I work in the Dawson st area so it's not quite as bad. I do cycle through Amiens st etc every day though so I see the methadone carry on and pill dealing every day. They don't bother me though, I just feel bad for them, imagine that was your life it's just sad.
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.
Dr Crayfish wrote: » Why did they decide to house everyone in the city centre anyway? Were they just tearing down old Georgian slums and putting blocks of flats etc there instead? Was there even one person thinking of the future back then? I often thought maybe because we were poor and everyone worth their salt emigrated lead to no one ever believing this country would actually grow and prosper so there was no point planning for the future.
alastair wrote: » Except it isn't. It's 20% local authority housing - or 80% private housing. And our GDP is essentially artificial - the richest Dubliners really have very little to do with multinationals playing shell games with IP etc, and routing money through virtual Dublin branches - the profits never actually benefitting anyone within the city. Dublin is not poor, but it's nowhere near as wealthy as it's GDP suggests.
Dr Crayfish wrote: » But even the zoning of land. And I think most of the flats etc would have been built way before the 80s.
amtc wrote: » Anyway from recollection all but about 3 methadone clinics are in.north city. There was a proposal a few years ago to have one in Castleknock. Our Taoiseach led the objections.
amtc wrote: » e encampments. I used to work at junction of Talbot St and that was desperate. Anyway from recollection all but about 3 methadone clinics are in.north city. There was a proposal a few years ago to have one in Castleknock. Our Taoiseach led the objections.
L1011 wrote: » Social housing is not, never has been, and never will be free.
MysticMonk wrote: » Compared to privately renting or privately purchasing it's pretty close to being free.
Dr Crayfish wrote: » I know 2 different girls (girlfriends of friends) who have a child, and neither of them work, and they both have social housing. One of which is in Malahide by the way, not some sh*thole. If they don't work how is it not free?
alastair wrote: » Because it costs money in rent? The clue is in the outgoings - whether to a private landlord or a local authority. If you’re having to shell out, irrespective to whom, it’s not free.
Dr Crayfish wrote: » Ok but these girls aren't paying the money to the landlord. So how is it costing them anything?
alastair wrote: » They’re paying the money to the local authority or housing association. That’s a cost, just as it would be if the money was going to a private landlord.
Dr Crayfish wrote: » What money do they pay? Money from their dole, which is given to them by the state? Just give it a rest ffs.
alastair wrote: » That’s nothing to do with the reality of having to pay rent. Do you have the same issue with trust-fund kids paying rent to private landlords? The source of the money doesn’t remove from the fact of the cost. If you’ve some issue with the principle of social welfare, why not complain about that, rather than make up porkies about ‘free housing’?
Dr Crayfish wrote: » Trust funds tend to be earned by the trustee's parents. You are deluded.
Lux23 wrote: » There is one in Coolmine.
MartyMcFly84 wrote: » Regardless of the source of the income. It is a cost, paying rent to either the council or a private landlord is a reduction in disposable income.
MysticMonk wrote: » It's a reduction in income they didn't earn in the first place...and as these stats point out,more than half of them don't even pay that! Giving people anything for nothing in the long term is a mistake and people demanding a "right" to free housing is one of the causes of the rent crisis.
“It is worth noting that the principal cause of arrears is not the nonpayment of rent but the failure of tenants to inform the housing and residential services department of changes in their personal circumstances in a timely manner. “This has resulted in retrospective debits being applied once the change in circumstances has been identified.”
MysticMonk wrote: » Giving people anything for nothing in the long term is a mistake and people demanding a "right" to free housing is one of the causes of the rent crisis.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1a8522b26abe4367117071263a70671.svg)
