Why are the government mixing social housing with private housing?

Yurt2 · 09-08-2019 03:47PM

14dMoney wrote: »

No I wouldn't, see my above comment.

Oh yes you would. We can all see your posting history. One barmy right-wing canard after the next.

14dMoney · 09-08-2019 03:48PM

Yurt! wrote: »

Oh yes you would. We can all see your posting history. One barmy right-wing canard after the next.

Meanwhile, you sit there on your highhorse, smelling your own farts, telling everyone they should be as virtuous as you.

Yurt2 · 09-08-2019 03:51PM

14dMoney wrote: »

Meanwhile, you sit there on your highhorse, smelling your own farts, telling everyone they should be as virtuous as you.

Not really. You just have crap ideas, and I'm gently guiding you towards the realisation you're spamming the forum with boring sh*te that's been done by other low-IQ posters 100 hundred times already.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 09-08-2019 03:52PM

14dMoney wrote: »

Who?

I’m obviously not going to say! Much as I don’t like them, I don’t want anyone to be picked on.

14dMoney · 09-08-2019 03:53PM

Yurt! wrote: »

Not really. You just have crap ideas, and I'm gently guiding you towards the realisation you're spamming the forum with boring sh*te that's been done by other low-IQ posters 100 hundred times already.

It's you that needs guidance friend. If you can't stand opinions outside of your own narrow scope, you should probably call it a day on the old internet.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 09-08-2019 03:53PM

JayZeus wrote: »

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.

Hello, District 9.

Rubberchikken · 09-08-2019 03:55PM

we have an example of social housing surrounded by privately built houses plus its an area with constant through traffic, and pedestrians.
it has meant that the area is safe and relatively quiet.

on the other hand we have a social housing estate built in a cul de sac not too near any other houses and the amount of unsavoury behaviour is off putting.

we need proper social housing integrated into other areas.

lola85 · 09-08-2019 03:56PM

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.

How in gods name are they in a social house?

3 jobs amongst them.

Some people get a social house then get the better jobs and are still in the social house.

Rent is proportional to your income but can only be max 200 a month.

Fair play of you can swing it.

Yurt2 · 09-08-2019 03:56PM

14dMoney wrote: »

It's you that needs guidance friend. If you can't stand opinions outside of your own narrow scope, you should probably call it a day on the old internet.

Booooooring

14dMoney · 09-08-2019 03:57PM

Yurt! wrote: »

Booooooring

Entertaining enough for you to reply though.

14dMoney · 09-08-2019 04:11PM

Rubberchikken wrote: »

we have an example of social housing surrounded by privately built houses plus its an area with constant through traffic, and pedestrians.
it has meant that the area is safe and relatively quiet.

on the other hand we have a social housing estate built in a cul de sac not too near any other houses and the amount of unsavoury behaviour is off putting.

we need proper social housing integrated into other areas.

Why? If the residents create an unpleasant area, that's their own fault.

09-08-2019 04:13PM

JayZeus wrote: »

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.

Tough, yet fair. There is enough time for an able-bodied person in capable mental health to find their way. Shape up, or ship out.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 09-08-2019 04:17PM

lola85 wrote: »

How in gods name are they in a social house?

3 jobs amongst them.

Some people get a social house then get the better jobs and are still in the social house.

Rent is proportional to your income but can only be max 200 a month.

Fair play of you can swing it.

It’s probably just down to manpower in the various government departments, not checking often enough. Some families might be in the house a bit longer than they should. And the family might not be acting maliciously either, just getting on with very busy lives and forgetting about it themselves. If you’re holding down two jobs, you are busy.

And some people are paid very low wages. The three jobs might not bring in very much.

Lux23 · 09-08-2019 04:20PM

I grew up in social housing, and my parents were working most of the time (mother always worked and my Dad was a caretaker at a Vets which supplied a house as payment). My mother also grew up in social housing and her father worked, but he had 8 kids to feed. Social housing isn't just for people on the dole or disability, it was also designed for working people that couldn't afford to buy or rent privately.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 09-08-2019 04:30PM

Lux23 wrote: »

I grew up in social housing, and my parents were working most of the time (mother always worked and my Dad was a caretaker at a Vets which supplied a house as payment). My mother also grew up in social housing and her father worked, but he had 8 kids to feed. Social housing isn't just for people on the dole or disability, it was also designed for working people that couldn't afford to buy or rent privately.

How dare you come on this thread and try to fraternise with us. Despicable.

:pac:

I’m from a similar background but private housing. My parents managed to pay the mortgage but got behind in payments a lot and we nearly lost the house a few times.

Yurt2 · 09-08-2019 04:37PM

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I’m from a similar background but private housing. My parents managed to pay the mortgage but got behind in payments a lot and we nearly lost the house a few times.

Falling behind on payments? Clearly they were defective humans and in no way deserving of a house, and certainly not a social house with my tax. To the badlands with them. The only people who deserve a house are people who look, act and sound like me.

14dMoney · 09-08-2019 04:39PM

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

How dare you come on this thread and try to fraternise with us. Despicable.

:pac:

I’m from a similar background but private housing. My parents managed to pay the mortgage but got behind in payments a lot and we nearly lost the house a few times.

And wouldn't you be pissed if your parents lost the house that they paid for, and there neighbors paying a tenner a week got to stay?

Mad_maxx · 09-08-2019 04:47PM

14dMoney wrote: »

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

In keeping with the current mandatory climate of political correctness

Mad_maxx · 09-08-2019 04:48PM

starbaby2003 wrote: »

Ehhhhh because large areas of social housing clustered together have shown it is ineffective. It isolates and stigmatises people living there. There are usually but not always anti social behaviour. People do better in mixed housing developments which is better for society as a whole. Look at Ballymun, Darndale etc ...

Yes, that is the received wisdom alright

carolmon · 09-08-2019 04:55PM

lola85 wrote: »

Rent is proportional to your income but can only be max 200 a month.

Have you got a credible source for that?

Gatling · 09-08-2019 04:58PM

carolmon wrote: »

Have you got a credible source for that?

For Dublin City Council residents, rent is calculated as 15% of the principal earner’s weekly income which exceeds €32 if it’s a single person and €64 if it’s a couple.

€256 pm for a 3 -5 bed property not bad considering people are paying €1700+ on a 2 bed rental property

Yurt2 · 09-08-2019 04:59PM

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Yes, that is the received wisdom alright

No, it's simple economics. Businesses and services (banks, coffee shops, pharmacies) will not open in areas with lower purchasing power - increasing social stratification and leaving those areas without access to amenities and employment opportunities. There's been any amount of studies done on this, so no, not just received wisdom.

MOH · 09-08-2019 05:00PM

14dMoney wrote: »

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

Well sure then would not be better off doing it the other way around? Build an exclusive private development for yourself and like-minded people. You could set up a whole gated community, no risk then of any trespassers. And have some kinds of residents association that votes on who's allowed in.
Might cost a lot more, but you'd probably find it worth it for the peace of mind and the safe knowledge that you won't have to live beside any lower level sub-people.

Mad_maxx · 09-08-2019 05:00PM

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.

You honestly think this country would accept a Singapore model?, they put you in jail there for farting twice in public

14dMoney · 09-08-2019 05:01PM

Yurt! wrote: »

No, it's simple economics. Businesses and services (banks, coffee shops, pharmacies) will not open in areas with lower purchasing power - increasing social stratification and leaving those areas without access to amenities and employment opportunities. There's been any amount of studies done on this, so no, not just received wisdom.

Ever hear of a bus? About 5 number 27 buses go to and from Joblesstown every hour. Not an excuse.

Yurt2 · 09-08-2019 05:08PM

14dMoney wrote: »

Ever hear of a bus? About 5 number 27 buses go to and from Joblesstown every hour. Not an excuse.

You've been trolling on boards about breastmilk cheese and social housing (among other things) all day on a workday. I'm sure you're a model of productivity yourself.

14dMoney · 09-08-2019 05:09PM

Yurt! wrote: »

You've been trolling on boards about breastmilk cheese and social housing (among other things) all day on a workday. I'm sure you're a model of productivity yourself.

Ever hear of a day off Sherlock Holmes?

Sardonicat · 09-08-2019 05:11PM

14dMoney wrote: »

Ever hear off a day of Sherlock Holmes?

No. Did Arthur Conan Doyle write that?

Yurt2 · 09-08-2019 05:12PM

14dMoney wrote: »

Ever hear off a day of Sherlock Holmes?

What was your excuse the other day when you were prattling on about Cultural Marxism all afternoon? Was that a day off too?

topper75 · 09-08-2019 05:13PM

starbaby2003 wrote: »

Ehhhhh because large areas of social housing clustered together have shown it is ineffective. It isolates and stigmatises people living there. There are usually but not always anti social behaviour. People do better in mixed housing developments which is better for society as a whole. Look at Ballymun, Darndale etc ...

So in your take, if we had only just sprinkled Ballymun and Darndale with 'firewalls' of middle class gullible types forking out for what others got handed to them, there would have been no skag, smashed phone kiosks, piebald ponies grazing on rubbish, burned out cars, or perma-welfare tracksuiteers? That is what those areas were missing?

Why are the government mixing social housing with private housing?

Comments