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

Yurt! wrote: »

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

Nope, I was just on the John. Burrito for lunch.

carolmon

Gatling wrote: »

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

You stated rent was capped at €200 per week

I think you need to do your sums again... it's 15% of assessable income above €64 per couple.

https://www.thejournal.ie/social-housing-rents-4399149-Dec2018/

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.

After the principal earner is taken into account, it’s another 15% of the income of each subsidiary earner on top of that. Assessable income includes payment for employment or self-employment, any social welfare payments, training allowances and income from pensions.

Shift allowances, travel allowances, bonuses, commission and overtime are all included.

Mad_maxx

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.

It's got nothing to do with economics, it's pure left wing social engineering

The kind of people who carry out those studies are invariably left wing ideologues

Yurt2

14dMoney wrote: »

Nope, I was just on the John. Burrito for lunch.

You must have particularly slow bowel movements, because you were at it a while.

Sardonicat

Yurt! wrote: »

You must have particularly slow bowel movements, because you were at it a while.

It's all the booby-milk cheese glueing his intestines up.

14dMoney

Yurt! wrote: »

You must have particularly slow bowel movements, because you were at it a while.

Not slow, just painful, bloody and fractured.

dudara

Moved from AH > CA

14dMoney

topper75 wrote: »

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?

I love the way the bleeding-hearts basically admit that the problem is these people, yet they think moving Anto and Deco into a 3 bedroom semi-detached in a sleepy suburb, will fix thuggery by osmosis.

Always Tired

14dMoney wrote: »

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

Sprry but that's complete BS. If you are stuck in a small town in the likes of Donegal with no car you have slim options. And how do you get a car or money to relocate when barely scraping by?

I've a college degree, experience in a variety of fields. I'm on my 2nd stint of Jobpath, 18 months on it and they haven't referred me to a single job. I send out apps for the 1-2 min wage jobs you might see advertised and cant even get a response. The only things hiring regularly are hotels and takeaways.

It's always people who haven't had to suffer unemployment who have this attitude, based purely on their own experience and some waffle stats from the government which is propped up by emigration and CE schemes and Dublin where bunk beds in shared rooms are going for 250 a week.

hmmm

A small number of families in social housing estates made it a misery for everyone else living there.

Some bright spark decided that the buildings themselves were the problem, and the solution was to move the troublemakers into private estates where they are now causing misery for their new neighbours. It's worse now because they are spread out, and everyone gets to experience this.

Eventually we will figure out that the problem was not the social housing estates, it was the small group of troublemakers who are never dealt with.

Gatling

carolmon wrote: »

You stated rent was capped at €200 per week

Oh no I didn't

James Brown

topper75 wrote: »

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?

Do you want to pay for hotels, private rentals or buying houses to rent to these folk OR build our own and rent/sell them to working taxpayers and the poor alike?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

14dMoney wrote: »

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?

No, I wouldn’t actually. We likely would have become a social housing family had my parents lost the house. We just about held on to it but it was touch and go. And now they own the house outright. They have an asset. The social housing family doesn’t. I bet many social housing families would love to be able to afford a mortgage and one day own a sellable asset.

14dMoney

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Do you want to pay for hotels, private rentals or buying houses to rent to these folk OR build our own and rent/sell them to working taxpayers and the poor alike?

Why can't we build an estate for those who want to pay privately, and an estate for those who don't?

pablo128

14dMoney wrote: »

Why can't we build an estate for those who want to pay privately, and an estate for those who can't

I took the liberty of fixing your post there.

14dMoney

pablo128 wrote: »

I took the liberty of fixing your post there.

Great, now answer the question.

pablo128

14dMoney wrote: »

Great, now answer the question.

That question has been answered many times in this thread.

And in many threads before it. They are commonly referred to as 'dole bashing' threads.

wench

Arya Rhythmic Vaccine wrote: »

Another item is the long list of reasons I wouldn't live in an estate. It's a total disgrace really, private owners should not be forced to live in the same estates as those in social housing and all the issues that go along with them.

Especially as they are getting the houses free or at a massive discount while the private owner is paying for their own house, paying for the social house through taxation and having to put up with living in the estate with them.

This rule of developers having to put in social housing should really be challenged.

Yeah, we can't all move back to Mammy and live in her garden though.

14dMoney

pablo128 wrote: »

That question has been answered many times in this thread.

And in many threads before it. They are commonly referred to as 'dole bashing' threads.

No it hasn't. Its quite straightforward. You live around people like you.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

wench wrote: »

Yeah, we can't all move back to Mammy and live in her garden though.

Uh huh. For many in our fair isle, Mammy and Daddy are their social welfare providers. Sure, Mammy and Daddy have earned that money but their offspring haven’t.

Eric Cartman

Social and private housing are moxed to dilute the number of social tenants meaning that when they kick off it doesnt ruin the reputation of an entire area, private homeowners are also more likely to take care of properties meaning that aesthetically areas don’t look bad. Its really a giant trick by the government to pretend that social tenants arent the problem and its somehow somebody elses fault that the likes of ballymun and moyross happened

14dMoney

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Social and private housing are moxed to dilute the number of social tenants meaning that when they kick off it doesnt ruin the reputation of an entire area, private homeowners are also more likely to take care of properties meaning that aesthetically areas don’t look bad. Its really a giant trick by the government to pretend that social tenants arent the problem and its somehow somebody elses fault that the likes of ballymun and moyross happened

Very true. That and referring to general thuggery as 'disadvantaged'

Eric Cartman

14dMoney wrote: »

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Social and private housing are moxed to dilute the number of social tenants meaning that when they kick off it doesnt ruin the reputation of an entire area, private homeowners are also more likely to take care of properties meaning that aesthetically areas don’t look bad. Its really a giant trick by the government to pretend that social tenants arent the problem and its somehow somebody elses fault that the likes of ballymun and moyross happened

Very true. That and referring to general thuggery as 'disadvantaged'

Pretending that social tenants have the same needs and wants and the same ability to maintain property as private owners is the biggest lie governments perpetuate worldwide

corks finest

eviltwin wrote:

Despite you think not all people who are eligible for such housing are scumbags or criminals or welfare claiments

Correct ,but as a tenant in one there's an awful lot on anti social stuff/ noise from parties at all hours/ fighting/hassle / unruly kids/parents/ lack of civil pride/littering/ scroungers list goes on.
I'm here over a divorce,raising my kid since he was 2 + ,come from Bishoptown so have seen both sides of the coin.
In general ppl who get something for nothing don't give a fu*k about neighbours/ neighbourhood , great incentive for my 16 yr old to study gain a degree and get to hell away from our current abode,and by God I'll make sure he does just that, education equals opportunity equals choice

Mad_maxx

It's the reason I'd never buy in a brand new estate

MonkieSocks

Gonna be huge blocks of apartments for social homes in Coolock Village ( Chanell school), the old Chivers site and Cadburys site.

All very close together.

That area is very neglected by Dublin City Council.

Markcheese

Mad_maxx wrote: »

It's the reason I'd never buy in a brand new estate

Well the councils buy houses in established estates... So outa luck there...

14dMoney

Markcheese wrote: »

Well the councils buy houses in established estates... So outa luck there...

That's what I hated about. They're forcing different types together in a "you'll like what I tell you to like" move.

pablo128

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058002587

Have a read of that.

14dMoney

pablo128 wrote: »

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058002587

Have a read of that.

Shocking stuff.