Find out what % of an estate is social housing

Yep this is why we have what we have atm due to that been the case. However I understand people feeling peeved knowing you paid full why someone may have paid a much lower amount

Also there has to be a way if there are social houses there is a reporting system that give a damn if the person/people living there are bad

• That is factually incorrect.
• Incremental Tenant Purchase Scheme for existing local authority houses, 2016
• Tenant Purchase of Apartments Scheme (TPAS)
• Incremental Purchase Scheme for newly built houses, 2010
• Tenant Purchase Scheme, 1995 (closed to new applicants)

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.

In your own prejudiced view perhaps.

Reread my post.

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.

Examing the police on economic grounds is not the same as the hyperbole and nonsense you get on boards regarding this issue, maybe you need to canvas your local TD or a journalist.

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?

By prejudice you mean a bias against council housing based on no grounds?

The quantitative and qualitative data undermine your claim of prejudice, unfortunately.

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