14dMoney wrote: » No I wouldn't, see my above comment.
Yurt! wrote: » Oh yes you would. We can all see your posting history. One barmy right-wing canard after the next.
14dMoney wrote: » Meanwhile, you sit there on your highhorse, smelling your own farts, telling everyone they should be as virtuous as you.
14dMoney wrote: » Who?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yurt! wrote: » Booooooring
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
14dMoney wrote: » Would a simpler solution not be to be build dedicated estates for social housing? That way it would keep everyone happy.
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 ...
lola85 wrote: » Rent is proportional to your income but can only be max 200 a month.
carolmon wrote: » Have you got a credible source for that?
Mad_maxx wrote: » Yes, that is the received wisdom alright
14dMoney wrote: » I wouldn't care, as long as there's a clear border. Those other busy bodies can feck off.
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.
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.
14dMoney wrote: » Ever hear of a bus? About 5 number 27 buses go to and from Joblesstown every hour. Not an excuse.
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.
14dMoney wrote: » Ever hear off a day of Sherlock Holmes?
