Councillor gets social and housing sorted. Met with protests.

sure with All this talk of sustainability etc, doesn’t it make sense that the skangers live in central locations and workers drive up here from Roscommon ?

We keep on hearing about the dying of rural Ireland. Relocate the skangers there , they’ll be relatively isolated not causing nuisance to multiple neighbors in an apartment and the local economy can thrive , with the billions wasted on bookies , takeaways and pubs ! Huge demand then for welfare Wednesday post offices and to reopen closed Garda stations !

Are the social and affordable in the same or different blocks ? Assuming privaye one’s are in their own block ?!

Gatling wrote: »

Not all though

Indeed, but your ignorant rage typing suggest none do.

BattleCorp

Idbatterim wrote: »

Are the social and affordable in the same or different blocks ? Assuming privaye one’s are in their own block ?!

I know I'll be shot down for having this opinion but I'd be well p1ssed off if I worked my balls off for years and paid top dollar for one of those houses and someone got one for pretty much free beside me.

BattleCorp wrote: »

I know I'll be shot down for having this opinion but I'd be well p1ssed off if I worked my balls off for years and paid top dollar for one of those houses and someone got one for pretty much free beside me.

even being beside an 'affordable' house (if it was to the same standard) would piss me off , but the idea of one of the 'non affordable' units even sharing a stairwell or courtyard with the social houses would turn my stomach.

Boggles wrote: »

rage typing .

Some people are having a discussion you just seem to be trolling me .
Don't blame anyone for your own failing to understand a discussion

BattleCorp wrote: »

I know I'll be shot down for having this opinion but I'd be well p1ssed off if I worked my balls off for years and paid top dollar for one of those houses and someone got one for pretty much free beside me.

Happened to one of managers bought in a fairly new estate in Kildare has a mortgage for 550,000 the road backing on to them about 10 houses were bought by the local authorities for social housing ,

LillySV

BattleCorp wrote: »

I know I'll be shot down for having this opinion but I'd be well p1ssed off if I worked my balls off for years and paid top dollar for one of those houses and someone got one for pretty much free beside me.

Did u read all the millennials, freeloaders and scum demanding free houses on his twitter account.... taxpayer paying too much for too long to provide for uselesss wasters who are too lazy to provide for themselves

BattleCorp wrote: »

I know I'll be shot down for having this opinion but I'd be well p1ssed off if I worked my balls off for years and paid top dollar for one of those houses and someone got one for pretty much free beside me.

You see this is it. All of this “ best practice “ bull**** , come up with by the decision makers , who will never, EVER be victims of their own policy of living beside these **** and would leave pack up within hours if they ever had to !

Or by the do gooders, no experience of having these people as neighbors. Laughable hypocrites or delusional, take your pick!

The odd time I go up north , I throw a hundred euro worth of petrol into the tank , couldn’t care less if it’s a few irrelevant cent less down here. Stops a big chunk of it being wasted down here !

I was in the states a few months ago. I’d be considered left wing over there chatting to people! Here? With my moderate views ? Far far right! Don’t forget who votes you in varadkar you snake. Because you’re not getting a single vote from Margaret cash or her Ilk , the ones you bend over backwards for while hanging the early risers out to dry you treacherous invertebrate!

lola85

Social housing used to be the basics.

2 bedroomes house regardless of how many kids you have, that’s your problem to sort.

Now it’s people demanding 5 bedroom houses for each kid and fully furnished.

Sick entitlement culture.

lola85 wrote: »

Social housing used to be the basics.

2 bedroomes house regardless of how many kids you have, that’s your problem to sort.

Now it’s people demanding 5 bedroom houses for each kid and fully furnished.

Sick entitlement culture.

true, but in those days it was different kinds of tenants too, theres a turning point on social housing in the 70s, most people arguing for social housing seem to either believe its like the 50s or just have economic guilt. Drugs, immigration and the constant bloating of the welfare state changed everything. Even our acceptance of single parent families and having kids before marriage, as much as theres nothing wrong with that, it created a culture. When my grandfather got his council house the entire street was working, antisocial behaviour was minor and drugs werent a factor. Most growing up there went to school and got jobs and the work ethic was instilled, thats not a thing anymore. Children now are growing up in Ireland where their parents and their friends parents have never held a job, where the only guy on the road who does anything productive with his day is selling coke and theres about 28 fathers responsible for 30 children but only 2 of them are around. Its a complete decay of ambition, ethics, morality and paternal education. It can only result in decay and crime and antisocial problems.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

even being beside an 'affordable' house (if it was to the same standard) would piss me off , but the idea of one of the 'non affordable' units even sharing a stairwell or courtyard with the social houses would turn my stomach.

Where do you live?

It has been a prerequisite for years that 10% of new developments are set aside for affordable / social housing.

Honestly you would want to be a special sort of contrarian if that would you píss you off to the point where you were physically sick.

Couldn't imagine living with that level of begrudgery TBH.

lola85 wrote: »

Social housing used to be the basics.

2 bedroomes house regardless of how many kids you have, that’s your problem to sort.

Now it’s people demanding 5 bedroom houses for each kid and fully furnished.

Sick entitlement culture.

I believe that’s the way it is in Germany. You can forget thinking more scrotes is going to get you more leverage!

Set up a giant camp site in Phoenix park and give them a tent ! They can have their f***** central location to go in and peruse fine art in the national gallery and fine dine or whatever it is they do with all that time and money on their hands !

Boggles wrote: »

Where do you live?

It has been a prerequisite for years that 10% of new developments are set aside for affordable / social housing.

Honestly you would want to be a special sort contrarian if that would you píss you off to the point where you were physically sick.

in the middle of 2 acres of land surrounded by an estate of detached houses built in the 70s that were all privately owned and always have been.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

in the middle of 2 acres of land surrounded by an estate of detached houses built in the 70s that were all privately owned and always have been.

Rich kids

Eric Cartman wrote: »

in the middle of 2 acres of land surrounded by an estate of detached houses built in the 70s that were all privately owned and always have been.

Still living at home? Good for you, not everyone is so fortunate to be able to do that.

Hopefully the council buy up a few of the houses around you.

Boggles wrote: »

Still living at home? Good for you, not everyone is so fortunate to be able to do that.

:pac: I dont own it and won't claim to, but good areas have rentals too.... youd love to think im like this because my parents are minted, sadly not.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

:pac: I dont own it and won't claim to, but good areas have rentals too....

I was jesting.

Having a percentage of affordable homes in new developments is a good idea, rising tide and all that.

We don't need to build more houses that just leads to higher house prices, we need to build more affordable homes for everybody who wants one.

The more I think about it the more it makes sense to relocate the skangers. It rains more in west of Ireland , relocate them there and they can get their free water from the heavens in pots and pans! Will boost the numbers going to mass there too !

Eric Cartman wrote: »

:pac: I dont own it and won't claim to, but good areas have rentals too.... youd love to think im like this because my parents are minted, sadly not.

Unlike largely social housing estates where aspirations tend to amount to leaving school early then going on the scratcher ,or a young girl deciding she's going to have a baby followed by several others because she wants her own 4eva house like her mammie got and her mammie before her .

It's an endless cycle

James Brown

lola85 wrote: »

Social housing used to be the basics.

2 bedroomes house regardless of how many kids you have, that’s your problem to sort.

Now it’s people demanding 5 bedroom houses for each kid and fully furnished.

Sick entitlement culture.

No. Now it's hotels and private landlords paid by the state.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

true, but in those days it was different kinds of tenants too, theres a turning point on social housing in the 70s, most people arguing for social housing seem to either believe its like the 50s or just have economic guilt. Drugs, immigration and the constant bloating of the welfare state changed everything. Even our acceptance of single parent families and having kids before marriage, as much as theres nothing wrong with that, it created a culture. When my grandfather got his council house the entire street was working, antisocial behaviour was minor and drugs werent a factor. Most growing up there went to school and got jobs and the work ethic was instilled, thats not a thing anymore. Children now are growing up in Ireland where their parents and their friends parents have never held a job, where the only guy on the road who does anything productive with his day is selling coke and theres about 28 fathers responsible for 30 children but only 2 of them are around. Its a complete decay of ambition, ethics, morality and paternal education. It can only result in decay and crime and antisocial problems.

You are still talking about a minority.
Most people are hard working tax payers. What about them? What about the people like your Grandfather?

Boggles wrote: »

I was jesting.

Having a percentage of affordable homes in new developments is a good idea, rising tide and all that.

We don't need to build more houses that just leads to higher house prices, we need to build more affordable homes for everybody who wants one.

Ive never given out about developments of affordable housing , ive actually given out about how the definition of affordable can be 310k , id much rather see an affordable housing plan for the commuters of dublin at the detriment of social housing which has no need to be in the commuter belt. But I do think the mixed development model is flawed, the children of those in affordable housing only stand to lose when you put social with it. Affordable housing now is what social housing was in the 50s , social housing now is what slums were.

Gatling wrote: »

Unlike largely social housing estates where aspirations tend to amount to leaving school early then going on the scratcher ,or a young girl deciding she's going to have a baby followed by several others because she wants her own 4eva house like her mammie got and her mammie before her .

It's an endless cycle

Simple. No leaving cert , no welfare. A welfare system based on what you paid in too. No contributions, no welfare. Cut it off totally after a period.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Ive never given out about developments of affordable housing , ive actually given out about how the definition of affordable can be 310k , id much rather see an affordable housing plan for the commuters of dublin at the detriment of social housing which has no need to be in the commuter belt. But I do think the mixed development model is flawed, the children of those in affordable housing only stand to lose when you put social with it. Affordable housing now is what social housing was in the 50s , social housing now is what slums were.

310,000 is “ affordable “ yet the scrotes getting the virtually free housing, with the free money provided by those expectated to pay e310,000 can’t or won’t even pay the pittance in rent to the council ? Comedy ! Comedy !

lola85

Matt Barrett wrote: »

No. Now it's hotels and private landlords paid by the state.

You are still talking about a minority.
Most people are hard working tax payers. What about them? What about the people like your Grandfather?

I’m quite happy with hotels and houses rented out by private landlords to house these people.

Honestly they don’t deserve a house for pittance while we subsidize our own mortgage and theirs.

If they want better then better themselves first.

Survival of the fittest and all that.

lola85 wrote: »

I’m quite happy with hotels and houses rented out to private landlords to house these people.

Honestly they didn’t deserve a house for pittance while we subsidize our own mortgage and theirs.

If they want better then better themselves first.

Survival of the fittest and all that.

And take responsibility? And work hard to improve their own situation? Don’t be absurd! Mad talk !

Idbatterim wrote: »

And take responsibility? And work hard to improve their own situation? Don’t be absurd! Mad talk !

the state has to bottle (vodka) feed them from cradle to grave or its not good enough. Free house, free legal aid, free school clothes and books, free everything and absolutely no personal responsibility.

BattleCorp

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You are still talking about a minority.
?

It appears to be a growing minority that is increasingly costly to look after them. Our social welfare model that rewards those who don't try to help themselves is unsustainable.

Yeah. There is going to be a massive increase in pension aged population. You can assume health budget will obviously then increase largely too. Then you have motor related revenue for example that will probably start falling quite a lot over the next few years. The days of ridiculous welfare increases every year are over. This budget they got nearly nothing and it’s an election year with a booing economy. Not that the workers got anything either. But you can tell that if they aren’t throwing anything to the welfare classes first and foremost, that all is not rosy !

James Brown

lola85 wrote: »

I’m quite happy with hotels and houses rented out by private landlords to house these people.

Honestly they don’t deserve a house for pittance while we subsidize our own mortgage and theirs.

If they want better then better themselves first.

Survival of the fittest and all that.

That's not what societies are for.

If they want better, for sure.

As a tax payer I'd rather not be paying hotel bills or rents at the going rate or buying houses at the going rate for these people to use as social housing.