Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Why are the government mixing social housing with private housing?

24567…21

Comments

  • #32
    14dMoney
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 407 ✭✭14dMoney


    eviltwin wrote: »
    They probably disown them

    I would have thought living through the recession would make us all a bit more humble, a bit more grateful for what we have and more emphatic to people who find themselves in a bad place.

    If you're able-bodied, you've no excuse to be unemployed in this climate.


  • #33
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    14dMoney wrote: »
    If you're able-bodied, you've no excuse to be unemployed in this climate.

    In theory


  • #34
    VinLieger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,964 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    I wonder why the term Ghetto has such negative connotations? Nope cant figure it out.....


  • #35
    14dMoney
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 407 ✭✭14dMoney


    eviltwin wrote: »
    In theory

    No, in practice. Most of the unemployed lads now and days would sleep on the ground if there was work in the bed.


  • #36
    Graces7
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,634 ✭✭✭✭Graces7


    misterme123 wrote: »
    There are so many threads like this. Ridiculous stuff like would you live beside someone on the dole, or would you date someone earning less than you. It's amazing how many people seem to live in a little middle class bubble. Surely even wealthy people here have some friends/family on social welfare.

    The need for help with housing can happen to anyone, through d isability or chronic illness, through old age, through the kind of financial issues that are common.

    There is no one type of person; and yes I am a pensioner in social housing. Some of the generalisations here are....I was in council housing in the UK for a while because of disabling illness. Many of my school and university lived in council estates; hard working good folk. salt of the earth.

    Some folk are wearing blinkers.

    It goes wrong when a ghetto is created. Which is what some folk here want to happen.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    lalababa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,763 ✭✭✭lalababa


    Mixed A. council and B.affordable and C.private is the way to go imho. A little bit of A , a little bit more of B, and a good lump of C. And any As acting the maggot dealt with severly. The B's & C's will influence the A's overtime.
    If you put all A's together there is a tendency for things to go downhill.
    And the loophole (if still there) of a developer being able to buy out the social clause should be abandoned.
    I would suggest a mix let's say out of 100 houses, that there be 5to10 As, 10to20 B's and 70to85 Cs. And all mixed up over the estate.


  • #38
    Padraig Mor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,793 ✭✭✭Padraig Mor


    _Brian wrote: »
    But it’s a mistake, it just causes strife and lowers the value of non social housing and after a time the councils end up buying many of the additional houses increasing the % of social housing and the result is the same anyway.

    Yes, yes not everyone who lives in a social house is trouble, but a massive % are professionally unemployed on a generational level.

    QFT.

    While it would be completely incorrect to suggest that a majority of those living in council houses are scumbags, it is without doubt that the vast majority of scumbags live in council houses, or other free / subsidized accommodation. I think very few middle class people mind living near poor people - but they sure as hell don't want scumbags for neighbours.

    There should be no council houses mixed in with private buyers due to the high risk of scummers - of which only a tiny number are required to destroy an estate. However, some of the points above re mixing social strata etc are correct and I believe that 'private' housing estates should have a significant portion of affordable housing whereby low waged working people can buy a house at a large discount (of, say, 50%) but will, crucially, pay for and own it themselves, thus investing them in the area and its community.

    If we continue to insist on giving free houses to those who refuse to find work, they should be located in 100% social estates.


  • #39
    FTA69
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,252 ✭✭✭FTA69


    JustMe,K wrote: »
    I don't see how it would keep everyone happy?

    We should go back to social housing being a helping hand for people rather than a 'foreva home'.

    No that’s the last thing we need to do, create estates as dumping grounds for the unemployed, addicted and the general poor etc. What’s far better for society is people mixing; social housing was largely a success in London because it was mixed and in areas that also had wealthy people - in other words a healthy type of society.

    Social housing needs to be built en masse and made available to working people who live in the cities.


  • #40
    14dMoney
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 407 ✭✭14dMoney


    lalababa wrote: »
    Mixed A. council and B.affordable and C.private is the way to go imho. A little bit of A , a little bit more of B, and a good lump of C. And any As acting the maggot dealt with severly. The B's & C's will influence the A's overtime.
    If you put all A's together there is a tendency for things to go downhill.
    And the loophole (if still there) of a developer being able to buy out the social clause should be abandoned.
    I would suggest a mix let's say out of 100 houses, that there be 5to10 As, 10to20 B's and 70to85 Cs. And all mixed up over the estate.

    So you admit that the social problems stem from column A?


  • #41
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    _Brian wrote: »
    It’s an effort to avoid building slums. By mixing people from different socio economic groups they hope one half will help police the other half and the overall neighbourhood settle at an acceptable behaviour level.

    But it’s a mistake, it just causes strife and lowers the value of non social housing and after a time the councils end up buying many of the additional houses increasing the % of social housing and the result is the same anyway.

    Yes, yes not everyone who lives in a social house is trouble, but a massive % are professionally unemployed on a generational level.

    If the house is your home, does that matter? If you buy after social housing is mixed in, you’ll have gotten it for cheaper too. And house values fluctuate for all kinds of reasons.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    14dMoney
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 407 ✭✭14dMoney


    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »
    If the house is your home, does that matter? And house values fluctuate for all kinds of reasons.

    Because who wants to lose money?


  • #43
    misterme123
    Closed Accounts Posts: 82 ✭✭misterme123


    Padraig Mor wrote: »
    QFT.

    While it would be completely incorrect to suggest that a majority of those living in council houses are scumbags, it is without doubt that the vast majority of scumbags live in council houses, or other free / subsidized accommodation. I think very few middle class people mind living near poor people - but they sure as hell don't want scumbags for neighbours.

    There should be no council houses mixed in with private buyers due to the high risk of scummers - of which only a tiny number are required to destroy an estate. However, some of the points above re mixing social strata etc are correct and I believe that 'private' housing estates should have a significant portion of affordable housing whereby low waged working people can buy a house at a large discount (of, say, 50%) but will, crucially, pay for and own it themselves, thus investing them in the area and its community.

    If we continue to insist on giving free houses to those who refuse to find work, they should be located in 100% social estates.


    Most poor people don't want anti-social neighbours either.


  • #44
    14dMoney
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 407 ✭✭14dMoney


    misterme123 wrote: »
    Most poor people don't want anti-social neighbours either.

    I'm sure that they don't. However if you pay for your own place, it's not unreasonable to expect your neighbors to have paid aswell.


  • #45
    pablo128
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,219 ✭✭✭pablo128


    You could buy a house in a new development where the builder guarantees no social housing will be included. A year down the line, your neighbour decides to emigrate or whatever and rents the house out to travellers on HAP.

    Tough luck.


  • #46
    InTheShadows
    Closed Accounts Posts: 727 ✭✭✭InTheShadows


    14dMoney wrote: »
    That's not really fair on the people who buy privately though.

    Life's not fair shocker.


  • #47
    Auguste Comte
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,143 ✭✭✭Auguste Comte


    The snob is strong in some.


  • #48
    InTheShadows
    Closed Accounts Posts: 727 ✭✭✭InTheShadows


    14dMoney wrote: »
    I'm sure that they don't. However if you pay for your own place, it's not unreasonable to expect your neighbors to have paid aswell.

    Why?


  • #49
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    14dMoney wrote: »
    Because who wants to lose money?

    There’s no guarantee anyone will make a profit on the house they bought if they resell it. None at all. For many reasons. So people probably shouldn’t be fretting about the potential selling price of their home. Especially if they buy in a mixed estate and benefit from a lower asking price themselves. Obsession with house prices and house-flipping contributed to the bubble. Maybe people should worry about it less.


  • #50
    14dMoney
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 407 ✭✭14dMoney


    pablo128 wrote: »
    You could buy a house in a new development where the builder guarantees no social housing will be included. A year down the line, your neighbour decides to emigrate or whatever and rents the house out to travellers on HAP.

    Tough luck.

    Luckily landlords as a general rule of thumb, have more than 7 brain cells, so this rarely, if ever happens.


  • #51
    14dMoney
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 407 ✭✭14dMoney


    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »
    There’s no guarantee anyone will make a profit on the house they bought if they resell it. None at all. For many reasons. So people probably shouldn’t be fretting about the potential selling price of their home. Especially if they buy in a mixed estate and benefit from a lower asking price themselves. Obsession with house prices and house-flipping contributed to the bubble. Maybe people should worry about it less.

    There's no guarantee, but why throw another spanner in the works which is guaranteed to devalue a home?


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    JustMe,K
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 610 ✭✭✭JustMe,K


    FTA69 wrote: »
    No that’s the last thing we need to do, create estates as dumping grounds for the unemployed, addicted and the general poor etc. What’s far better for society is people mixing; social housing was largely a success in London because it was mixed and in areas that also had wealthy people - in other words a healthy type of society.

    Social housing needs to be built en masse and made available to working people who live in the cities.

    Where did I say anything about creating estates? Council houses are everywhere now, various other agencies provide housing also, integrated in what were once private estates as well as new builds.


  • #53
    caff
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 954 ✭✭✭caff


    We should aim for the Singapore model, 80% of people live in public housing.
    If people want something more or different they are welcome to purchase it themselves. The default for most people in Singapore though is public housing, no stigma about it there.


  • #54
    InTheShadows
    Closed Accounts Posts: 727 ✭✭✭InTheShadows


    _Brian wrote: »
    It’s an effort to avoid building slums. By mixing people from different socio economic groups they hope one half will help police the other half and the overall neighbourhood settle at an acceptable behaviour level.

    But it’s a mistake, it just causes strife and lowers the value of non social housing and after a time the councils end up buying many of the additional houses increasing the % of social housing and the result is the same anyway.

    Yes, yes not everyone who lives in a social house is trouble, but a massive % are professionally unemployed on a generational level.

    Have you got the stats to back up that "massive percentage" claim?

    I live in a social/affordable/private estate and out of the 50 or so social housing units i'd say 3-4 families are life dole heads the rest are employed. My neighbour in a social house holds down two jobs and his wife works part time. I also grew up in a social housing household and in our estate the vast majority worked.


  • #55
    pablo128
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,219 ✭✭✭pablo128


    14dMoney wrote: »
    Luckily landlords as a general rule of thumb, have more than 7 brain cells, so this rarely, if ever happens.

    If you don't want poor poorer people than yourself living next door to you, buy the house either side of you or buy a rural one off house. You absolutely don't get a say in who lives next door to you. Stop being a snob and looking down on others less fortunate than yourself.


  • #56
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    I grew up in a town with three council estates. I’m so bemused. Do people really think that most people living on these estates aren’t normal people? Were social problems worse on the three council estates? I guess. But it was marginal. Seriously. So many people in my school came from the estates, many were my friends. A totally mixed bunch of kids, like anywhere else. A-stream students, the odd remedial kid, goody-two-shoes, bitches, funny people, ambitious people, bullies etc. etc. You know, just people. It seems like so many people here are just so removed from experiencing this so just have an idea in their head.


  • #57
    14dMoney
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 407 ✭✭14dMoney


    caff wrote: »
    We should aim for the Singapore model, 80% of people live in public housing.
    If people want something more or different they are welcome to purchase it themselves. The default for most people in Singapore though is public housing, no stigma about it there.

    Why would you want the majority of people reliant on the government? What is this new obsession with everyone thinking that the government should provide a lifelong nipple for people to suckle on? Where's the pride in that?


  • #58
    InTheShadows
    Closed Accounts Posts: 727 ✭✭✭InTheShadows


    14dMoney wrote: »
    Because who wants to lose money?

    Ah i see you view housing as an investment and not a place to live for all communities.


  • #59
    14dMoney
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 407 ✭✭14dMoney


    pablo128 wrote: »
    If you don't want poor poorer people than yourself living next door to you, buy the house either side of you or buy a rural one off house. You absolutely don't get a say in who lives next door to you. Stop being a snob and looking down on others less fortunate than yourself.

    Travellers aren't less fortunate. I wish I could afford a horse and a 2019 Hiace.


  • #60
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    14dMoney wrote: »
    There's no guarantee, but why throw another spanner in the works which is guaranteed to devalue a home?

    Like I said, probably shouldn’t fret about the resale price of their home then. Seeing as it’s outside their control anyway and not just because of the neighbours. And if mixed-housing becomes the norm, won’t that level the playing field again?


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    InTheShadows
    Closed Accounts Posts: 727 ✭✭✭InTheShadows


    14dMoney wrote: »
    Why would you want the majority of people reliant on the government? What is this new obsession with everyone thinking that the government should provide a lifelong nipple for people to suckle on? Where's the pride in that?

    The majority of people will avail of welfare of one kind or the other in their life. No shame in it.


Advertisement