Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Find out what % of an estate is social housing

2

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 900 ✭✭✭sameoldname


    Your reward is getting to own a house after your mortgage is paid. A house is one of the few constantly-appreciating assets you can buy in the long-term and even if you chose not to live in it in the future it'll still provide you with rental income. Once you've paid for it it's also an asset with which you can secure new loans against if ever needed. You can also pass it down to future generations or you can sell it after the kids have moved out to buy something smaller in a nicer area. That's your reward.

    They on the other-hand will get none of those things.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,020 ✭✭✭boetstark


    Firstly I agree that scumbag behaviour is definitely not limited to those on social housing benefits.

    Unfortunately every statistic shoes that anti social activities is more prevalent in areas with much social housing. Probably idle hands and such stuff.

    Also if there is social housing in immediate area or next door it 100% affects the value of your home , and that is from personal experience with 3 separate estate agents.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,741 ✭✭✭suvigirl


    Well, have a look at the Dublin housing market today. Social housing in an estate has little effects that anyone can see.

    in my estate, I have no idea who owns their house, who rents their house, if the council or housing bodies own any houses or who is on HAP. Has no affect on me whatsoever.



  • Registered Users Posts: 698 ✭✭✭TedBundysDriver


    Yeah, I just can't afford petrol for my Ferrari

    Amnesty International’s new investigation shows that Israel imposes a system of oppression and domination against Palestinians across all areas under its control: in Israel and the OPT, and against Palestinian refugees, in order to benefit Jewish Israelis. This amounts to apartheid as prohibited in international law.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,473 ✭✭✭Tork


    If you don't want "undesirables" living near you, buy a house out in the sticks and be done with it. Once you move into an estate or any sort of built up area, you lose all control over who's living near you. Some people just neglect their houses, no matter what they've paid for them. Some houses will get bought up by the council as the original owners move on. Others will be bought by people who want to rent them out. You can rant all you want on a thread such as this one but it's not going to change a thing.

    Really, this thread is just a variation on the endless welfare bashing ones that have been started here on board.



  • Registered Users Posts: 900 ✭✭✭sameoldname


    Here's the thing, even if you do live out in the country it doesn't mean you won't live beside an "undesirable". I live out in the sticks 2 miles from the nearest council house and the owner of the house next door is the local drug dealer with his constant music, barking dogs and occasional garda raid. Unless you've enough money to buy all the land around you there is every chance you will end up living next to an anti-social prick, social housing or not.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,473 ✭✭✭Tork


    No, that's true. It is in the lap of the gods who you eventually end up living near. The original question asked in this thread is utterly pointless. Even if you move into an area that doesn't have a social or rented house in sight today, there is no guarantee that'll be the case in 5-10 years time. It's not a new phenomenon either. I know of estates and terraces which started out as perfectly nice normal places but went to the dogs over a decade or two. Not necessarily because of the local authority either. It's a lazy label.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,067 ✭✭✭Murph85




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,342 ✭✭✭herbalplants


    I viewed few houses in very desirable areas, most probate sale and my stomach turned at the condition those poor old people lived at the end of their life. Totally delapidated,hardly heating in the place yet their "inheritors", their lovely darlings have their hands up for as much money as they can grab. Yet there are houses more in the disadvantage areas which you can see the elderly were properly taken care off. A lot to be said.

    Today I viewed a house again in high sought after area, I cannot describe the absolute horrors, it looked like junkies lived in it there was a bedroom which I think it wasn't maintained since 1950. Pure poverty inside those walls. Yet highly sought area, far away from any council area.

    Remember the shills only get paid when you react to them.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 698 ✭✭✭TedBundysDriver


    Amnesty International’s new investigation shows that Israel imposes a system of oppression and domination against Palestinians across all areas under its control: in Israel and the OPT, and against Palestinian refugees, in order to benefit Jewish Israelis. This amounts to apartheid as prohibited in international law.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 749 ✭✭✭tjhook


    Also, no matter what you do, you may die of cancer. So there's no benefit in investigations and tests to see what might be going on inside you.

    </sarcasm>

    It's all about probabilities. It's just inconsistent to say that putting social housing all together creates ghettos, but also say that spreading it around doesn't create issues for other people.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,101 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    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



  • Registered Users Posts: 170 ✭✭JCN12


    Ferrari - pretty nice. Have you thought about trading in for a BMW or Merc? Seems to be a lot of them around these days, so might be better on petrol.



  • Registered Users Posts: 170 ✭✭JCN12


    • 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)




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,592 ✭✭✭Hoboo


    I don’t think living in the middle of a major city, and a private housing estate in county anywhere, are comparable. At all.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,592 ✭✭✭Hoboo


    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.



  • Registered Users Posts: 170 ✭✭JCN12


    In defence of the OP, when you read articles like this, you want to mitigate your exposure to risk when buying.


    If the local governments actually enforced their obligations to evict poor behaving tenants, their would be a very swift cleansing process.

    If you are living beside trouble making private renters, there may be some recourse via the landlord.

    As it stands, if you happen to live beside a poor behaving tenant of the council, you are in for a wild ride.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,180 ✭✭✭✭Mrs OBumble


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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,741 ✭✭✭suvigirl


    Live beside a bad behaved tenant /householder at all your in for a wild ride.

    The prejudices on boards is disgusting



  • Registered Users Posts: 170 ✭✭JCN12


    In your own prejudiced view perhaps.

    Reread my post.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,741 ✭✭✭suvigirl


    I'm not the one afraid of/ hating on social tenants😂

    Tbf, it's just the typical attitude seen on boards



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 292 ✭✭Bobby_Bolivia


    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.



  • Registered Users Posts: 170 ✭✭JCN12




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭RichardAnd


    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.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭RichardAnd


    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?



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    This goes round and round everyone in social housing is not working? How many threads have come up on boards about social housing at this stage?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭RichardAnd


    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.



  • Registered Users Posts: 170 ✭✭JCN12


    The truth should not make way for feelings.

    It seems you may be a great council tenant or sympathiser for same. However, there are many who are not well behaved, and have become enshrined with entitlement.

    Pushing back against realities and living in denial to be a nice person only fuels the problem. Policy failures need voiced, examination and rectification.

    The current state of the subvented permanent residency is simply not acceptable or sustainable for a small economic community of contributors.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    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.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    We are in the early stages of the election cycle, ask your local TD has much of an issue this policy is for those who get in touch with them. I'II take a guess that it's not the number one issue they are contacted about.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭RichardAnd


    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.

    Post edited by RichardAnd on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,741 ✭✭✭suvigirl


    A prejudiced view of social housing tenants is not a valid concern, it's a prejudice.

    As for ethics? The reason social housing exists is to house people who cannot house themselves for any amount of reasons. That's the point of it.

    a homeless crisis in the country, that everyone is aware of, and still people complaining about social housing🙄



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,914 ✭✭✭mrslancaster


    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?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,213 ✭✭✭Mic 1972


    NYC is a complete failure, not at all the model we should follow



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,695 ✭✭✭Ezeoul


    "... everyone knows 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"

    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?

    Post edited by Ezeoul on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,180 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    Exactly. Point proven.

    Living next door to social means if you get a bad tenant, there is little you can do.

    Which is why people dont want to live next to them.



  • Registered Users Posts: 170 ✭✭JCN12


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

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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,180 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    Because the councils have no home builders of their own, but they do have a lot of money.

    They are taking the easy way out to reduce their social housing list and couldnt care less about the impact on their constituents.

    I belive Dun Laoghaire council built 2 social homes last year.

    2 social homes in a borough with a population larger than Cork City.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,385 ✭✭✭Quitelife


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



  • Registered Users Posts: 170 ✭✭JCN12


    Careful now, that might be prejudice against drug dealers.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,180 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    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.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,695 ✭✭✭Ezeoul


    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.

    Kilcarbery Grange, Clondalkin.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭RichardAnd


    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.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,415 ✭✭✭Former Former Former


    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?

    This always gets bandied about but it's nonsense. No one ever turned to crime and drugs because there wasn't a GP round the corner, no area ever had 80% unemployment because the pharmacy was a bit of a trek. Would opening a dental surgery stop people joyriding?

    These things only happen because of the people living there.

    I grew up in west Dublin in the 80s. The council never had to "put" a GP or pharmacy in my estate, they just opened. That's what private enterprises do when there's money to be made.

    Under normal circumstances, a GP or pharmacist would be rubbing his hands at the prospect of being the only game in town in a large area. Particularly in areas when a huge proportion of people would be on medical cards, which was manna from heaven.

    So what was it about these areas that no one wanted to take it on?

    The Corporation and Councils made huge planning errors but ultimately it was the residents who turned these places into what they became. It's not a very politically correct statement but it's true and it's why people don't want social tenants next door.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,695 ✭✭✭Ezeoul


    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.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,694 ✭✭✭Jinglejangle69




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,914 ✭✭✭mrslancaster



    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.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,695 ✭✭✭Ezeoul


    I'm sorry you're struggling to understand this, but I guess you'd have to have lived it, to get it.

    And you never will, if you seriously believe that social housing estates were - or even now - are treated the same as privately owned ones.

    Or if you think the mistakes of the past should be repeated.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,914 ✭✭✭mrslancaster




  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement