Nimbyism towards social housing.

political analyst wrote: »

Why do so many people in this country have a Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) approach to the planned construction of social housing?

You know the answer, dogs in the street even know

I have no issues with social housing in the area, as long as it's not near me.

Was helping my friend move house over the weekend and he was telling me about their council house next door neighbour.
My friend wanted planning permission for an extension out the back and that neighbour went around to all the neighbours in the area, lied about what the extension was and got them to oppose it. Neither of them work at all, yet my friend who busts his balls working to support his growing family had to move out because they denied his extension.

The same neighbours would constantly make noise with hammers, power tools etc late at night even though my friend had young kids trying to sleep. When he went to ask them to stop the noise (politely) they told me to "fcuk off or I'll put this hammer through your head".

Magaret Cash!

Real world consequences of living near social housing is the main reason. You now may have neighbours that are anti-social. That can make your area unsafe. The other factor is it may reduce the value of your property. That is because people may think their will be antisocial behaviour or there actually is.
Values can drop by more than 10% which is €40-€50k. How many people are willing to give up that kind of money?

Cork Trucker wrote: »

You forgot to mention you are/were a landlord. Has this devaluation happened to you?

I didn't forget to mention it. It has no bearing on how people feel and devaluing of property.

Cork Trucker wrote: »

Of course it does, many private landlords despise people in receipt of hap etc, and would rather not have a social tenant next door to their property

No it has no bearing what so ever to what I said in this thread.

Lollipops23 wrote: »

My mother grew up next to a social housing estate in the 60s and 70s. The place wasn't trashed and the majority seemed to take pride in their homes.

Why is it so common now for SH estates to look like warzones and with tonnes of anti social problems?

Because there are no consequences to such behaviour, which is also why the NIMBYism exists I would imagine.

Lollipops23 wrote: »

My mother grew up next to a social housing estate in the 60s and 70s. The place wasn't trashed and the majority seemed to take pride in their homes.

Why is it so common now for SH estates to look like warzones and with tonnes of anti social problems?

Because as time went on the people who took the hand up moved on. What remains was the people who expect the world to pay their way.

There was less of a divide in 60/70 but as people moved up those with less became resentful. Drugs were also a factor as criminals became more violent to keep their business interests secure.

My mother grew up in social housing and people were grateful for the help out of tenements. My first house I bought was a former council house. A few doors down from my granny's. One of the houses was also lived in by a grandchild of the original tenant. It was still owned by the council and the lease was passed down the family. My gran bought hers and I bought mine yet this family has 3 generations live off the state.

Lollipops23 wrote: »

Were there consequences in years gone by? I don't know a huge amount about it.

Social pressure was sort of stricter then. People were expected to be good Christian's and if you weren't people would sort of shun you. Society changed and people were allowed to be more free in personal choices.

That also meant being an ahole was easier and people stopped caring about what others thought. The thing is it was replaced with a different set of rules that were enforced with violence. Talking to the police or reporting minor offences is now dangerous in some places so they don't do it. Places get worse and people stop caring so it gets worse

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

The government policy at the moment is to spread out the social housing through the population rather than having another Darndale or similar. It would seem to make sense as a policy until you realise that you are working hard to pay a mortgage and your next door neighbour is getting it for free.

Not quite though. Yes policy not to build other large social housing estates of the past is in place. They are also entitled to at least 10% of developments for social housing.

The problem is they aren't doing that. The private development in Beaumont Dublin was to have 15% social housing but a housing agency bought it. It became 100% social housing. They are also doing something similar elsewhere even before the builds are complete.

One of the worst plans is Coolock. An area that has had it's fair share of social issues and predominantly social housing. There are plans to build apartments but they have now morphed. Instead of adding private owners to the area they are now build to let and social housing. Making Coolock even larger social housing area through the back door. HAP will be used a lot in the rentals. They did something a bit similar in Santry Woods but people could buy them and it is small landlords renting to HAP. Coolock will be large private company paying no tax.