Don't buy in a new estate

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.housingagency.ie/sites/default/files/2021-03/SSHA-2020.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjSg72B48byAhVPhlwKHUi6C1IQFnoECAMQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2sKmZ5eCD9QLxAluIfzZBq

Developers are selling to them at cost price. The buyers of the other houses make up the difference by having to pay more for their houses.

Developers arent losing out. The buyers buying the non-social houses are the ones losing out.

And that's usually what happens. But every once in a while they end up housing somebody who just doesn't care about anything or anyone, who is usually well known in the area. And things go downhill quick, so fast it surprises some people who have never lived in the scope of somebody like that before. And the absolute worst case scenario, is the place gets so bad that only others of that ilk end up moving into the street/estate. They don't fear anything in the system, it doesn't matter to them if they end up in jail/court. In fairness to the councils, they are aware of this and do try to not let it happen but it can and does.

In a first hand account, my mother in laws apartment complex has seen a number of landlords and private owners sell up in the last 2 years as a single social housing unit has made life unbearable in a block of 12 apartments. To the point where half of them are currently empty and will probably remain that way until eviction. And the kicker, this is the second tenant in which they are pressuring for eviction, the first was evicted after 3 years of terrorising people there.

So just over half at 54%, not as effective as the posters "Majority" is it? Ok yes technically over half is a majority. I'd like to know what affect the pandemic had on the survey. Ill leave this here for you; when-writing-about-survey-data-51-might-not-mean-a-majority

I never denied that it was an "actual majority" did I? And yes the article is irrelevent if it were only to highlight the use of confidence levels and margins of errors but if you read it again it also highlights how the use of the word majority can be misleading. Again, 54% is an actual majority yes, no denying that but the way the poster used it was questionable in my opinion.

I know this is a sensitive issue but there is undoubtedly a big moral hazard at play with new estates.

Clearly it's not all social tenants but it can't be said often enough - you get just one dysfunctional family next to you and your life could be pretty much destroyed, in fact the whole estate can be dragged down. And try having the council move them on...if you're talking upwards of half estates as social housing you are in a really bad situation if you've bought. If you are talking 10% social housing there is a decent enough chance you'll get away with the anti social behaviour and effect on your property value. You're not really getting away with it at 40%.

I think that it is a desperately unfair situation.

My advice - do all the research you can in advance.

Would I buy in a new estate currently? On balance probably not due to this issue. It's too big a gamble.

So the majority in social housing is unemployed like I originally said and was told I was lying.

Thanks for the clarification.

We can now move forward.

I did.

They made me an offer approx 20% over what I paid for it a couple of months after I closed.

I couldnt refuse that in the end.

I didnt find out it was the council who bought it until afterwards either. It was all very cloak and dagger.

Planning Permission went in there a couple of weeks ago for stables and a huge extension.

I think i know who they bought it for now.

I also grew up in a council estate. 95% of people are great. One bad family moves in. They destroy the area and bring in all sorts of anti-social behaviour. Neighbors sell up and move out for some peace before the value drops even more.

Another scumbag family move in. Things get worse. More decent people move out. Then another.

It turns into a spiral.

Where I grew up went like that. No way would I raise a child in that place now, even though I still know a fair few friends still there. Basically they are stuck now.

My parents house in Firhouse D24 fell victim to the house next store being bought up by the council and used for social housing. My parents spent years of hell with the tenants shouting, screaming and banging things day and night, slamming doors, smoking hash in the garden and generally piss drunk. They have loads of large dogs roaming their garden and neighbours complained about them barking, the tenants went around putting hand written threatening notes under neighbours doors including my parents as some sort of revenge for whoever complained about their dogs. "WE KNOW ITS YOU, YOULL BE SORRY!" Ignorant feckers ! Did the council kick them out after threatening the neighbours ? No! They said it wasn't serious enough and that they just made threats and didn't actually follow them up.

My mum would say there is no pride in anyone who gets something for free while everyone else pays for it (house).The only way to get away from a family like that is either they move out or we move out.

I'm sure some social housing tenants are superb people but some are definitely not. I myself lived close to a social house estate in Tallaght for years and sold my own house to buy another to get away from the crowds of little young lads who spawned from the place and making trouble in our estate.

I think social housing in New development's is a bad idea. It only takes one family to piss off the entire street. Word gets around and the house prices fall in that area. Why should I buy a new home for 450k to have an ungrateful bunch of loud mouths getting the same house across my road for free ? It's not about snobbery, it's about getting a 20 year mortgage and expecting peace and quiet and respect from your neighbours.

Jesus, would you listen to yourself.