Find out what % of an estate is social housing

Lol!

Used to be net curtains back in the day. Was a point of interest coming down Gardner street in the car as a kid. You’d know you were in Dublin.

The courts are unlikely to allow a council to evict anyone.

The council can't evict people in reality.

If they evict somebody, they'll say they are homeless. Who deals with homelessness? The council.

By evicting somebody they create massive amounts of work for themselves, and they still have to deal with the person anyway, and still have to provide them with a housing solution.

Once you're into a council house, you're in, so you can do whatever you like without consequence.

I'm not having a go at you personally, but dismissing what may be valid concerns as a prejudice is one thing that has got to stop. We have monumental issues in the country, and in the West overall, that exist solely because open discussion is proscribed.

Taking social housing in particular, there are major issues with the current model that are financially and even ethically unsustainable. We can't keep ignoring them because some people who are unaffected by them get upset by asking questions.

Well consider that people who do not work are given a house or apartment for a song with all maintenance included whilst those who work pay huge rents or mortgages for a hovel. Does that seem ethical?

I'm sure that it's been said on these boards, but that's not what I I said. There are many in social housing who do work, but there are also a great many who do not.

It's not the same at all. Fortunately, that's not what I or many others here have said. We've expounded why the current social housing model is fiscally unsustainable, and I added the moral argument to boot. There's nothing hyperbolic about that. No one who thinks seriously on the matter is saying that everyone in a social house is a drug-addict.

It's all simply a matter of what resources are available. The social housing model that we have today was created when circumstance were very different to what is the case now. The old model isn't fit for purpose. Indeed the state is actively buying and renting properties to provide housing using the tax money of people who themselves are unable to find a place to live. That is, forgive my saying so, appalling.

If social housing in itself is not the issue, ie everyone knows the properties are high quality, the green spaces are attractive, the locations and services (schools transport etc) are on a par with other areas, and the people who avail of subsidized housing are no better or worse than anyone else, then please can someone explain what is the problem with building more SH estates? I don't get it.

SH tenants need a place to live but the current model where councils rely on acquiring a small percentage of hugely expensive private developments and allocating those units to a few SH tenants versus spending that same money on building less expensive units to house more people is clearly not delivering enough houses. And it cant be the cost because councils and AHB's are also buying extra units over the Part5 allocation - at full price - in very expensive estates. How can councils stand over that mis-management of public money?

What you're not getting is that SH has improved because it is now built in small numbers and integrated with private housing.

But the huge 100% social housing estates built in the past that some think we should go back to, were NONE of those things. They were literally thousands of houses built on green fields on the outskirts with little or no services. That is why we must never go back to that model.

My family moved into a SDCC house in Tallaght in 1984. The nearest bus route was well over a mile away. The house was basic. No central heating, only an open fireplace in the living room and one in the kitchen. No flooring. Single glazed wooden windows. No GP nearby. No dentist. No pharmacy. Only a prefab for a primary school. No secondary school. No church (not that I was bothered by that). No phone lines (these didn't arrive for nearly three years). The nearest phone box was 2 miles away. 1 small shop for literally thousands of houses. This pre-dated the Square, the Hospital, and the Tallaght by-pass.

Now, these things came later. Much, much later. Sometimes decades later. But if you really think the old model of SH estates had lovely green manicured spaces with services, schools, transport - even roads! ready in place, then you're either on a wind up or are very naive about the reality of what that kind of social housing was like.

Edit: here is an article written about Fettercairn, in Tallaght in 2007. That estate was over 20 years old by that stage and still didn't have a GP. Does this sound like a good model to return to, to you?

People who sell drugs from their Social House should be evicted immediately , destroying the neighbourhood ifor everyone else.

Social estates do have more anti social behaviour than private estates.

Its untrue to claim otherwise.

The Gards spend much more time investigating anti social behaviour in Ballymun than they do in Ballsbridge.

That said, what I personally find frustrating is the councils insistance that private developers should build mixed developments and give 10% or 20% to social, but on the odd occasion that the council bothers their ass to actually build an estate or complex, they dont enable a mixed development themselves by putting 20% of homes on the market for non social tenants to purchase.

If we want mixed developments, it should work both ways.

The council are there to serve all residents, not just those on low or no incomes and the housing crisis isnt confined to those on the social.

If we want to live in a mixed social society, we need to enable it.

And that starts with govt policy.

Simply because you deem something prejudiced does not make it so. In the case of the argument that I put forward (namely that the current model of provision of social housing is both financially unsustainable and unfair to those who pay for it) is not in any way bigoted. I make no judgement on anyone in social housing. I care about the facts.

I don't think that anyone is complaining about the concept of social housing in and of itself. I don't want to see people made homeless. The issue is that the current model is failing to house people, and succeeding to drive up the cost of accommodation for those who should be able to house themselves. The latter, ironically, puts more strain on the system for obvious reasons.

There is no silver bullet to the housing crisis. We need candid, adult discussion of the issues, but all we get is "build more houses" or "the government needs to...". Social housing, immigration and any number of other proscribes topics are elephants in the room, and I prefer not to ignore problems.

Again, this is not aimed at you personally, and please do not think that I'm being acrimonious, but I am sick to death to tiptoeing on eggshells to avoid offending people who are unable or unwilling to accept reality as it is.

No, no one ever turned to crime because there was no GP, and that's not the point, and I think you know that.

It goes to show that these estates were built, en-masse, under-funded and under-developed, and families thrown into them, and then left to rot. Totally deprived. So of course social problems arose.

The only people who want to go back to that kind of social housing model, and those who never experienced it.

But you know, I think that's what some people actually want to see. So they can look down their noses even further at social tenants.

I'm a private owner and have a social tenant living next door, and several more living around me.

So no, not everyone has the same prejudice against social tenants living next to them.

What do you think happened for the thousands of people living in private estates in the 70-80's? I'd be interested to know what exactly you think private developments got from the state simply because they were private estates.

What do you mean that people were "thrown into houses and left to rot" or that SH estates were under-funded and under-developed? Deprived how? You know well that council estates got the same services - schools, street cleaning, lighting, transport, libraries, parks, community centres etc. These are provided in different locations to be used by all citizens in a particular area and anything else is provided by private business and sporting organisations. You also know that schools in many areas receive additional funding, free childcare (in place for decades) and many free or heavily subsidised social activities that simply doesn't exist in private estates.

You seem to suggest that people living in SH can't manage their own lives unless there is extra hand-holding provided by the state.

Please tell...