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

Why are the government mixing social housing with private housing?

14dMoney

Would a simpler solution not be to be build dedicated estates for social housing? That way it would keep everyone happy.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

14dMoney

InTheShadows wrote: »

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

There's no pride in it either.

14dMoney

InTheShadows wrote: »

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

No, I view communities as collections of people with things in common.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

InTheShadows wrote: »

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.

Aye. I’m fascinated by the picture some people have in their heads of social housing.

And then of course the common refrain to the bolded bit “If they’re working, why don’t they rent or buy?”.

Yurt2

_Brian wrote: »

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

What percentage?

pablo128

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?

They rent the houses from the state. Is that difficult to understand?

You know jobless people can live in privately owned houses too?

caff

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?

Ye we should get rid of that pesky government. Let's get rid of all those motorways they build. Let private enterprise build them instead and charge tolls. Oh and those pesky regulations get rid of food safety stands and let market pressure and consumers decide what's safe they will vote with their wallets.
Housing is difficult to get right through provision solely by private money as it is an illiquid fixed asset though also treated as a commodity by investors. Private led housing supply doesn't respond efficiently to demand and supply is fast to contract yet slow to expand.
I'm not saying that people should get free housing all the time. That's not what happens in Singapore, but their government housing agency ensure a stable supply of housing.

14dMoney

pablo128 wrote: »

They rent the houses from the state. Is that difficult to understand?

You know jobless people can live in privately owned houses too?

At a significantly reduced price. Whereas the poor sod next to them, pays full-price.

14dMoney

caff wrote: »

Ye we should get rid of that pesky government. Let's get rid of all those motorways they build. Let private enterprise build them instead and charge tolls. Oh and those pesky regulations get rid of food safety stands and let market pressure and consumers decide what's safe they will vote with their wallets.
Housing is difficult to get right through provision solely by private money as it is an illiquid fixed asset though also treated as a commodity by investors. Private led housing supply doesn't respond efficiently to demand and supply is fast to contract yet slow to expand.
I'm not saying that people should get free housing all the time. That's not what happens in Singapore, but their government housing agency ensure a stable supply of housing.

Nobody said get rid of the government, hold the tangent lad. I pointed out that it's wrong for people to expect the government to provide everything for nothing.

pablo128

14dMoney wrote: »

At a significantly reduced price. Whereas the poor sod next to them, pays full-price.

The poor sod next to them gets to own the house when they are finished paying for it.

InTheShadows

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

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.

It's just pure ignorance or a lack of life education i think.

Some of the most decent people iv'e ever met in my life grew up in social housing with me and remain my friends to this day and some of the biggest w a nkers iv'e ever met where born with a silver spoon in their mouths from private housing in well off areas. Would it shape my view on everyone in private housing because of these bozos, of course it wouldn't yet many like to stereotype social housing tenants because of the actions of a minority.

Yurt2

14dMoney wrote: »

There's no pride in it either.

Taxpayers paid for your education, the roads you drive on, the hospitals you and your family attend when you're ill the midwife that delivered you.

I don't know if you're a scion of a Greek shipping magnate or something, but if you're not, you and every one in your family for several generations have had a hand-up at the expense of others in your community at critical points in their lives.

14dMoney

pablo128 wrote: »

The poor sod next to them gets to own the house when they are finished paying for it.

After paying full price for it. Which will then depreciate value over time because of their neighbours.

14dMoney

Yurt! wrote: »

Taxpayers paid for your education, the roads you drive on, the hospitals you and your family attend when you're ill the midwife that delivered you.

I don't know if you're a scion of a Greek shipping magnate or something, but if you're not, you and every one in your family for several generations have had a hand-up at the expense of others in your community at critical points in their lives.

Not really the same thing as expecting everything to be handed to you though. That's a collaborative environment.

pablo128

14dMoney wrote: »

After paying full price for it. Which will then depreciate value over time because of their neighbours.

My folks own their house. 2 houses actually. One is an ex council house which is worth 25 times more than they paid for it. The other is a privately owned house bought in 2003 which is worth less now than what they paid. You are talking rubbish to be honest

eviltwin

14dMoney wrote: »

Not really the same thing as expecting everything to be handed to you though. That's a collaborative environment.

Who is expecting everything to be handed to them now?

InTheShadows

14dMoney wrote: »

At a significantly reduced price. Whereas the poor sod next to them, pays full-price.

Okay so let's play this out. What should they be charged, the going rent rates in Dublin? Fair enough let's do that, now where are the people that plaster your walls going to live, where are the people who drive your buses going to live, where are the people who clean your mother's or fathers arse when they move into a nursing home going to live, the people who mind your kids in the creche going to live? In tents?

Maybe the business owners of these creches, nursing homes, building companies etc.. should pay them double what they are now earning so they can live in Dublin?

You haven't thought this through have you? Maybe before ****ting on a whole group of people who you really don't know and generally look down your nose at you should think about solutions.

Yurt2

14dMoney wrote: »

That does not equate to sitting on your arse, waiting for handouts.

As stated by others, being a recipient of social housing is not equal to being a dole lifer. You're trying, and failing, to draw a 100 percent correlation between the two.

You're making the claim, so churn out some stats. What percentage of social housing recipients are dole lifers?

eviltwin

14dMoney wrote: »

After paying full price for it. Which will then depreciate value over time because of their neighbours.

My former council house has increased by at least 50k since I bought it

14dMoney

InTheShadows wrote: »

Okay so let's play this out. What should they be charged, the going rent rates in Dublin? Fair enough let's do that, now where are the people that plaster your walls going to live, where are the people who drive your buses going to live, where are the people who clean your mother's or fathers arse when they move into a nursing home going to live, the people who mind your kids in the creche going to live? In tents?

Maybe the business owners of these creches, nursing homes, building companies etc.. should pay them double what they are now earning so they can live in Dublin?

Cheeverstown. Houses are very affordable there.

eviltwin

14dMoney wrote: »

Cheeverstown. Houses are very affordable there.

But if you have an increased demand from the low and medium paid undesirables you don't want to mix with the prices will increase dramatically........

14dMoney

eviltwin wrote: »

But if you have an increased demand from the low and medium paid undesirables you don't want to mix with the prices will increase dramatically........

Then build a dedicated housing estate for those who need council housing.

riclad

Dublin city council sold most of its house,s to former tenants since the 90,s .
Most council house,s are now owned by the person living there .
People who buy a house tend to take good care of it .
Some people who are on the housing list are old age pensioners ,
people on disablity allowance .
Saying a council estate is full of scumbags is simply wrong.
the council and certain charitys own apartment blocks ,
Apartments were not sold off .
i visit a friend who lives in a council block with 100 units,
i have never seen any trouble there or any signs of drug use.
You can buy a house in any estate , then someone buys a house, nearby ,and rents it out .
the councils policy at the moment seems to be be buy house,s direct from
builders .
The days of the council building large estates seem to be over .
You seem to be think every one on the housing list
is a drug user or a dealer.
this is like saying most people from a certain country are
drug dealers and terrorists .

Go to any music festival ,there,ll be middle class people using drugs.
if you drive around the city centre there s a few hundred
apartments being built by cluid and the dublin city council .
i know a block of apartments in finglas .
theres about 6 blocks of 60 units .built about 12 years ago .
At the back of the site in one corner theres 2 blocks owned by cluid a housing
charity .
I understand its not ideal if you buy a house for 300k,
and then find out that 3 house,s down from you the council has bought
2 house,s from the builder .
You can avoid that situation by buying an older house
in a small terrace cul de sac with 20 house,s in it.
The chances of the council buying one house in a single street is very low .

Scoundrel

14dMoney wrote: »

Would a simpler solution not be to be build dedicated estates for social housing? That way it would keep everyone happy.

I'd move them all in next door to you

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

InTheShadows wrote: »

It's just pure ignorance or a lack of life education i think.

Some of the most decent people iv'e ever met in my life grew up in social housing with me and remain my friends to this day and some of the biggest w a nkers iv'e ever met where born with a silver spoon in their mouths from private housing in well off areas. Would it shape my view on everyone in private housing because of these bozos, of course it wouldn't yet many like to stereotype social housing tenants because of the actions of a minority.

There’s a poster here on boards.ie who frequently comes off as completely uncouth. Just downright pigheaded, loutish and unmannerly in some of the things they unashamedly describe doing and admits to all kinds of dodgy real life behaviour.

The same poster is forever whinging about people on social welfare and especially registering their disgust at the thought of having to lower themselves to living beside social welfare recipients. I tell ya, I’d much prefer a social welfare recipient as a neighbour than that poster.

eviltwin

14dMoney wrote: »

Then build a dedicated housing estate for those who need council housing.

And then private buyers and renters will complain about the location and why should people on welfare get a house near the city yada yada.

You can't win.

14dMoney

eviltwin wrote: »

And then private buyers and renters will complain about the location and why should people on welfare get a house near the city yada yada.

You can't win.

I wouldn't care, as long as there's a clear border. Those other busy bodies can feck off.

14dMoney

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

There’s a poster here on boards.ie who frequently comes off as completely uncouth. Just downright pigheaded, loutish and unmannerly in some of the things they unashamedly describe doing and admits to all kinds of dodgy real life behaviour.

The same poster is forever whinging about people on social welfare and especially registering their disgust at the thought of having to lower themselves to living beside social welfare recipients. I tell ya, I’d much prefer a social welfare recipient as a neighbour than that poster.

Who?

Yurt2

14dMoney wrote: »

Then build a dedicated housing estate for those who need council housing.

You'd p*ss and moan about that too. Right-wing cranks are never happy.

14dMoney

Yurt! wrote: »

You'd p*ss and moan about that too. Right-wing cranks are never happy.

No I wouldn't, see my above comment.

[Deleted User]

I’m all in favour of a sliding scale for social housing. Fall on tough times, get 12 months cover to reside in a decent private estate/development, but after that you either find your feet or you’re off to a 24 month stint in social housing in a well serviced mixed housing estate. 12 month extension should be available as a one time option for participation in a 20 hour per week community/civil service programme.

If you’re still drawing welfare then, off to a purpose built high density housing area, packed full of people who don’t pay their way and live with their hands in everyone else's pockets, for whatever the reasons.

Antisocial behaviour while living in state accommodation schemes should have a fast track to being moved to depopulated rural areas, places where nobody else wants to live. To hell or to Connaught style.