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

Lucyspell

14dMoney wrote: »

That's not really fair on the people who buy privately though.

I agree. What incentive is there for anyone to work towards living in a nicer area? Takes incentive from everyone.

Mad_maxx

14dMoney wrote: »

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

Left wingers write policy when it comes to everything in this country, irrelevant who the minister signing off is

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Lucyspell wrote: »

I agree. What incentive is there for anyone to work towards living in a nicer area? Takes incentive from everyone.

What makes an area nice? Living by the sea? Proximity to good transport links? Nice housing stock? Do any of those things change greatly if there’s a small amount of social housing? And by buying, you’re putting money into an asset that you’ll pay off and ensure a rent-free roof over your head in retirement. Or to sell if you want to downsize and free up some cash. You also have more freedom to decorate the place how you wish. Aren’t those reasons a good incentive?

14dMoney

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

What makes an area nice? Living by the sea? Proximity to good transport links? Nice housing stock? Do any of those things change greatly if there’s a small amount of social housing? And by buying, you’re putting money into an asset that you’ll pay off and ensure a rent-free roof over your head in retirement. Or to sell if you want to downsize and free up some cash. You also have more freedom to decorate the place how you wish. Aren’t those reasons a good incentive?

Generally the people.

The Oort Cloud

14dMoney wrote: »

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

Yeah that will work, just like it did in the 70's and 80's. Just stick them all together far away from the on-high complaining souls of sufferingly stressed out snobs worried that a human being of less income is not worthy to live beside them.

The best way as of which is done today is to mix these people into private estates with the on-high, as this environment is a much better environment for the lesser well-off to grow in the community and have a better quality of life than just sticking all of these people together into a dedicated council estate of which never works and never will work.

the self-ingratiation of some snobs on this thread is quite putrid imo.

Yurt2

The Oort Cloud wrote: »

the self-ingratiation of some snobs on this thread is quite putrid imo.

All of them probably only two or three generations from spud or turnip subsistence farming or urban overcrowded slums themselves.

Their semi-d that they overpaid for now makes them a higher form of human than those without apparently.

14dMoney

The Oort Cloud wrote: »

Yeah that will work, just like it did in the 70's and 80's. Just stick them all together far away from the on-high complaining souls of sufferingly stressed out snobs worried that a human being of less income is not worthy to live beside them.

The best way as of which is done today is to mix these people into private estates with the on-high, as this environment is a much better environment for the lesser well-off to grow in the community and have a better quality of life than just sticking all of these people together into a dedicated council estate of which never works and never will work.

the self-ingratiation of some snobs on this thread is quite putrid imo.

So "these people" as you call them, are incapable of creating a good environment?

lola85

The Oort Cloud wrote: »

Yeah that will work, just like it did in the 70's and 80's. Just stick them all together far away from the on-high complaining souls of sufferingly stressed out snobs worried that a human being of less income is not worthy to live beside them.

The best way as of which is done today is to mix these people into private estates with the on-high, as this environment is a much better environment for the lesser well-off to grow in the community and have a better quality of life than just sticking all of these people together into a dedicated council estate of which never works and never will work.

the self-ingratiation of some snobs on this thread is quite putrid imo.

So these people as you put it need to be bred into private estates in order to behave civilized??

InTheShadows

14dMoney wrote: »

Generally the people.

You've been talking pony since the start of this thread. Ill tell you what I'd rather live beside 90% of the people I've known and met in social houses than your good self.

InTheShadows

The Oort Cloud wrote: »

Yeah that will work, just like it did in the 70's and 80's. Just stick them all together far away from the on-high complaining souls of sufferingly stressed out snobs worried that a human being of less income is not worthy to live beside them.

The best way as of which is done today is to mix these people into private estates with the on-high, as this environment is a much better environment for the lesser well-off to grow in the community and have a better quality of life than just sticking all of these people together into a dedicated council estate of which never works and never will work.

the self-ingratiation of some snobs on this thread is quite putrid imo.

Nothing worse than someone who thinks they are better than others just because of location.

14dMoney

InTheShadows wrote: »

You've been talking pony since the start of this thread. Ill tell you what I'd rather live beside 90% of the people I've known and met in social houses than your good self.

It's more than likely a reciprocal sentiment.

[Deleted User]

The Oort Cloud wrote: »

Yeah that will work, just like it did in the 70's and 80's. Just stick them all together far away from the on-high complaining souls of sufferingly stressed out snobs worried that a human being of less income is not worthy to live beside them.

The best way as of which is done today is to mix these people into private estates with the on-high, as this environment is a much better environment for the lesser well-off to grow in the community and have a better quality of life than just sticking all of these people together into a dedicated council estate of which never works and never will work.

the self-ingratiation of some snobs on this thread is quite putrid imo.

The whiff of entitlement from those who don't contribute as much to their own standing as others do is fairly rancid, while we're commenting on things that stink.

Yurt! wrote: »

All of them probably only two or three generations from spud or turnip subsistence farming or urban overcrowded slums themselves.

Their semi-d that they overpaid for now makes them a higher form of human than those without apparently.

Not a higher form of human. Just someone who has worked and earned a higher standard of living for themselves, in particular those who have come from the humble beginnings you snub your nose at.

Put down the thesaurus, Oort. The 'On-High' aren't impressed by a moaner with a broad vocabulary and little determination to make good for himself instead of looking to get handouts for layabouts. Take the chip off your shoulder, Yurt. It isn't going to help improve your own lot in life.

Lads, it's simple: You get out what you put in. This isn't difficult to understand.

[Deleted User]

InTheShadows wrote: »

Nothing worse than someone who thinks they are better than others just because of location.

Not as bad as a pedophile then? A nazi? A drunk driver? A rapist?

Nothing worse than a person who doesn't choose their words carefully, except for many things which are in fact, much worse.

InTheShadows

14dMoney wrote: »

It's more than likely a reciprocal sentiment.

Thank goodness for that.

InTheShadows

JayZeus wrote: »

The whiff of entitlement from those who don't contribute as much to their own standing as others do is fairly rancid, while we're commenting on things that stink.

Not a higher form of human. Just someone who has worked and earned a higher standard of living for themselves, in particular those who have come from the humble beginnings you snub your nose at.

Put down the thesaurus, Oort. The 'On-High' aren't impressed by a moaner with a broad vocabulary and little determination to make good for himself instead of looking to get handouts for layabouts. Take the chip off your shoulder, Yurt. It isn't going to help improve your own lot in life.

Lads, it's simple: You get out what you put in. This isn't difficult to understand.

Lads? Don't women get a look in?

You should choose your words more carefully

Nothing worse, right?

14dMoney

InTheShadows wrote: »

Lads? Don't women get a look in?

You should choose your words more carefully

Nothing worse, right?

Lads is a generic term if you're a culchie. Surely you can dig deeper than that.

InTheShadows

14dMoney wrote: »

Lads is a generic term if you're a culchie. Surely you can dig deeper than that.

No point I'll never dig a hole deeper than the one you are.

Yurt2

JayZeus wrote: »

The whiff of entitlement from those who don't contribute as much to their own standing as others do is fairly rancid, while we're commenting on things that stink.

Not a higher form of human. Just someone who has worked and earned a higher standard of living for themselves, in particular those who have come from the humble beginnings you snub your nose at.

Put down the thesaurus, Oort. The 'On-High' aren't impressed by a moaner with a broad vocabulary and little determination to make good for himself instead of looking to get handouts for layabouts. Take the chip off your shoulder, Yurt. It isn't going to help improve your own lot in life.

Lads, it's simple: You get out what you put in. This isn't difficult to understand.

I'm doing ok in life, thanks for the concern though.

There's nothing chippy about being sick of listening to the Bill Cullen-esque 'I sold penny apples' bootstrap p*ssing and moaning. If you worked and got what you want, good for you - if you were all that happy you wouldn't spend your time peddling toxic nonsense about other people.

No apologies for my words and the way I use them also. And I'm the one with an Italian chipper on my shoulder?

One particular poster spends his days hawking bile as if he's got his life in order. People who do that aren't well adjusted IMO.

[Deleted User]

InTheShadows wrote: »

Lads? Don't women get a look in?

You should choose your words more carefully

Nothing worse, right?

I'm sorry you're offended.

Lads and Lasses then.

Nothing worse, except...

The Oort Cloud

JayZeus wrote: »

The whiff of entitlement from those who don't contribute as much to their own standing as others do is fairly rancid, while we're commenting on things that stink.

Not a higher form of human. Just someone who has worked and earned a higher standard of living for themselves, in particular those who have come from the humble beginnings you snub your nose at.

Put down the thesaurus, Oort. The 'On-High' aren't impressed by a moaner with a broad vocabulary and little determination to make good for himself instead of looking to get handouts for layabouts. Take the chip off your shoulder, Yurt. It isn't going to help improve your own lot in life.

Lads, it's simple: You get out what you put in. This isn't difficult to understand.

Interesting. There's no need of course to get personal with that above comment. I just have my opinion in regards to all citizens of Ireland regardless of their circumstances to income or area of which they live or came from. I just think that if some people removed the snobbery and the up-lift of the nose, maybe every-one would get on better within the private community.

[Deleted User]

The Oort Cloud wrote: »

Interesting. There's no need of course to get personal with that above comment. I just have my opinion in regards to all citizens of Ireland regardless of their circumstances to income or area of which they live or came from. I just think that if some people removed the snobbery and the up-lift of the nose, maybe every-one would get on better within the private community.

Maybe when everyone could work hard, pay their way and provide what they want for themselves and their families without having to accept other people taking the easy road and the handout, then maybe everyone would 'get on better within the private community'.

If people want to create community, they can do that without having a pot to piss in. They certainly don't need to piss in someone elses pot to do so. Most people realise that. Unfortunately enough, there's a fair few who think they should be able to piss in any pot they like, because there's enough to go around and they didn't get off their arses to get their own pot in the first place, but sure not to worry, the fella next door worked/saved/sacrificed enough to afford two or three pots so sure, I'll just take one of his then instead.

Nah. Work/contribute, or to hell with you. People who live on social welfare aren't bad people by virtue of the fact they need financial assistance. I've known plenty, family, neighbours and friends who've needed to sign on over the years. But every one of them also knew people who had no right to be claiming what they did, working cash-in-hand jobs, paying nothing back, while living in housing provided by the council for a pittance. All the while, others worked their arses off, paid 62% tax (no joke...) on the few hours of overtime they might get and so on.

So no. The former have no right to live amongst the latter. They've not earned it. They've not contributed. They're not lesser humans, but they're crap neighbours, crap citizens, crap members of society. As a human, they're the same as anyone else. It's in every other regard they fall so far short, and I'm talking the long term unemployed here who won't relocate or sacrifice to be able to work and pay their way (including their taxes), that they should IMHO be pushed into housing in areas where they have no more than a roof over their heads and a place to lay down and wait to die.

If you live in rural Donegal (or wherever you say there's no work), have a degree and you still sign on, get up off your hole and relocate/emigrate. Take your family with you if you have to. Stop expecting to get a house surrounded by people who actually put the effort in to make a better life for themself and their families. And if you can't do that, you can rot.

ILoveYourVibes

Because that is how they have always done it.

Because they figure allowing different types of people to mix helps social mobility.

[Deleted User]

14dMoney wrote: »

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

Should you ever open your eyes when you drive through a fairly average middle-class estate, you'll have a very good guess at which houses are rented out by a private landlord, because they'll be the most poorly maintained houses in the estate because, well, most landlords couldn't give a flying fúck about anything but getting as much money as possible from their tenants. Not even simple paint jobs or lawnmowing to help the whole estate to look better.

People talk about social housing reducing the value of houses in an estate, while all these estates with a noticeable number of houses being rented out by private landlords definitely keep house prices in there depressed. But nobody seems to have an issue with that. I wouldn't care who is in a place as long as there's no anti-social behaviour and their property is not setting some "broken windows theory" precedent for the whole estate. Every community works better with mutual respect.

[Deleted User]

Aren't the Dutch currently sort of deporting their anti-social residents to some sort of Dutch Van Diemen's Land where they live in shipping containers? I'm very surprised this policy has never caught on in After Hours.

Amsterdam 'scum town' to house anti-social neighbours (2012)

Amsterdam to create 'scum villages'

Liberal Amsterdam plans to create 'scum villages'

More power given to mayors to tackle antisocial behaviour (2017)

El_Bee

Because misery loves company.

14dMoney

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Aren't the Dutch currently sort of deporting their anti-social residents to some sort of Dutch Van Diemen's Land where they live in shipping containers? I'm very surprised this policy has never caught on in After Hours.

Amsterdam 'scum town' to house anti-social neighbours (2012)

Amsterdam to create 'scum villages'

Liberal Amsterdam plans to create 'scum villages'

More power given to mayors to tackle antisocial behaviour (2017)

That's a fantastic idea. Councils are complete pushovers here.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

InTheShadows wrote: »

Nothing worse than someone who thinks they are better than others just because of location.

This thread ably demonstrates why many people fret about putting their address on their CV. My brother-in-law and his wife bought a house in a “better” area a while back because they fretoted about their children having to put Tallaght on their CV in the future even though it was a lovely area.

JayZeus wrote: »

The whiff of entitlement from those who don't contribute as much to their own standing as others do is fairly rancid, while we're commenting on things that stink.

Not a higher form of human. Just someone who has worked and earned a higher standard of living for themselves, in particular those who have come from the humble beginnings you snub your nose at.

Put down the thesaurus, Oort. The 'On-High' aren't impressed by a moaner with a broad vocabulary and little determination to make good for himself instead of looking to get handouts for layabouts. Take the chip off your shoulder, Yurt. It isn't going to help improve your own lot in life.

Lads, it's simple: You get out what you put in. This isn't difficult to understand.

Some social housing recipients work very hard in low income jobs. The three council estates in my home town was full of working people. Moving up to better paying jobs isn’t always possible especially in economically-depressed parts of the country. Are you a harder worker than the social housing recipient who is in a low income job?

And “put down the thesaurus”? Good forbid somebody not dumb down the language they use. Sometimes people know big words and have a broad vocabulary. Wouldn’t it be patronising of them to not use it?

Eric Cartman

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

InTheShadows wrote: »

Nothing worse than someone who thinks they are better than others just because of location.

This thread ably demonstrates why many people fret about putting their address on their CV. My brother-in-law and his wife bought a house in a “better” area a while back because they fretoted about their children having to put Tallaght on their CV in the future even though it was a lovely area.

JayZeus wrote: »

The whiff of entitlement from those who don't contribute as much to their own standing as others do is fairly rancid, while we're commenting on things that stink.

Not a higher form of human. Just someone who has worked and earned a higher standard of living for themselves, in particular those who have come from the humble beginnings you snub your nose at.

Put down the thesaurus, Oort. The 'On-High' aren't impressed by a moaner with a broad vocabulary and little determination to make good for himself instead of looking to get handouts for layabouts. Take the chip off your shoulder, Yurt. It isn't going to help improve your own lot in life.

Lads, it's simple: You get out what you put in. This isn't difficult to understand.

Some social housing recipients work very hard in low income jobs. The three council estates in my home town was full of working people. Moving up to better paying jobs isn’t always possible especially in economically-depressed parts of the country. Are you a harder worker than the social housing recipient who is in a low income job?

And “put down the thesaurus”? Good forbid somebody not dumb down the language they use. Sometimes people know big words and have a broad vocabulary. Wouldn’t it be patronising of them to not use it?

Its not like those areas were bad to start with, the reality is it is almost always dragged down by social tenants who then make it harder for other social tenants e.g not wanting to write that address on a CV.

If you actually seperated social housing into two or 3 tiers where you had a mix of those social tenants who are employed and have no convictions into private estates and isolated off those with convictions and lifetime welfare recipients to create their own misery you could prevent this happening.

Its incredibly unfair that those who grew up with working parents and were taught a work ethic are stigmatised because the loudest ressonance in the estate are determined to ruin everyones existance and drag down the image of an area.

InTheShadows

dazed+confused wrote: »

And claimed the Dole too.

No.

Graces7

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Its not like those areas were bad to start with, the reality is it is almost always dragged down by social tenants who then make it harder for other social tenants e.g not wanting to write that address on a CV.

If you actually seperated social housing into two or 3 tiers where you had a mix of those social tenants who are employed and have no convictions into private estates and isolated off those with convictions and lifetime welfare recipients to create their own misery you could prevent this happening.

Its incredibly unfair that those who grew up with working parents and were taught a work ethic are stigmatised because the loudest ressonance in the estate are determined to ruin everyones existance and drag down the image of an area.

and the children of those families? and who would judge and sentence?