So you bought a nice apartment in Dublin for a lot of money...

darkman2 · 03-05-2010 12:53PM #1

And then...

http://www.breakingnews.ie/business/treasury-holdings-signs-on-for-social-housing-development-456199.html

Is that fair

Not against social housing btw just I always thought that the whole 30% of every estate has to be for "social housing" with all the inevitable problems that come with them is a bit daft and will be devisive for those who actually forked out alot of dosh and have to pay a mortgage. Next door the person may be getting their social housing for nothing. Does not seem fair to me. I wonder if a new estate was built in Ballsbridge does this rule apply?

Is this mixing of classes really going to work?

pebbles21 · 03-05-2010 12:55PM

darkman2 wrote: »

I wonder if a new estate was built in Ballsbridge does this rule apply?

They let Gay Byrne move there .....so yes is your answer!

Biggins · 03-05-2010 01:04PM

You know, not all families on a housing list are the scum of the Earth!
Talk about tarring all with one brush!
Sorry also to hear that you don't want to live beside an unemployed electrician/fitter/carpenter/whatever and his/her family that has lost their home due to the Celtic Tiger dying!
Must be a great place indeed where you live. I hope so. Everyone should be so lucky.

As for "classes" WTF!!!
The only classes I know are the "employed" and the unfortunate "unemployed"
Any other "classes" can go shove their snobbery up their arse!

JohnnyChimpo · 03-05-2010 01:04PM

darkman2 wrote: »

Is this mixing of classes really going to work?

:eek: Heaven forbid, people from different socioeconomic strata being forced to acknowledge each others' existence :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Building massive ghetto social-housing developments has really worked wonders so far, don't you think?

Atlantic Dawn · 03-05-2010 01:08PM

An apartment is a glorified flat, if anyone has a problem mixing with others they should buy a detached house with a front and back garden.

Riamfada · 03-05-2010 01:08PM

I say, jolly good show Biggins. To the hamptons!

darkman2 · 03-05-2010 01:11PM

So it is better to create mini Darndales in every estate rather then just keeping them all together? No point pretending all those 100 units for example are going to be filled with salt of the earth plumbers or electricians. It only takes one family of scumbags to create hell on an estate.

mikom · 03-05-2010 01:13PM

darkman2 wrote: »

So you bought a nice appartment in Dublin for alot of money..

Yesss.

darkman2 wrote: »

And then...

http://www.breakingnews.ie/business/treasury-holdings-signs-on-for-social-housing-development-456199.html

* Monocle drops into glass of Champagne *

TskTsk · 03-05-2010 01:14PM

darkman2 wrote: »

Is this mixing of classes really going to work?

I know where you're coming from, but I don't think that the mixing of classes is the issue. Most people living in middle-to-upper class developments don't actually mix with their neighbours anyway.

My own experience of living in an apartment block or housing estate where some of the units were given over to social housing, or rented to social welfare recipients, was that they did not show the same level of respect to their neighbours or the homeplace that owner-occupiers did. On top of that, you had the inevitable resentment that comes with seeing someone get for free what you paid a lot of money for.

I would not suggest that this is going to be the case for all those who've fallen on tough times. It's just the experience of many people out there, and unfortunately that's the sort of experience you don't easily forget.

yoshytoshy · 03-05-2010 01:16PM

darkman2 wrote: »

So it is better to create mini Darndales in every estate rather then just keeping them all together? No point pretending all those 100 units for example are going to be filled with salt of the earth plumbers or electricians. It only takes one family of scumbags to create hell on an estate.

Theres all types of criminals living in all parts of dublin ,some live on ailesbury road ,some on dorset street.
Just because someone is unemployed or on a housing list ,doesn't mean there going to shoot the place up.

biko · 03-05-2010 01:16PM

Yes, it's better to spread them thin imo than creating ghettos of poor people.
Just because someone need social housing doesn't make them bad people.

Biggins · 03-05-2010 01:16PM

darkman2 wrote: »

So it is better to create mini Darndales in every estate rather then just keeping them all together? No point pretending all those 100 units for example are going to be filled with salt of the earth plumbers or electricians. It only takes one family of scumbags to create hell on an estate.

* So when 30% becomes social housing, they are all going to be automatic trouble makers and bring about social chaos every time? WTF?

* Irrespective of their previous possible job status, a lack of one now don't automatically shove them into the "scumbag" zone!

* It only takes one family of rich snobbish pricks to upset all the neighbours too ya know!

Toodle pip...

Cheap Thrills! · 03-05-2010 01:17PM

its not faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaiiirrr waaahhhh wahhh boo hoo

Cosmic justice!!! ha! :pac:

tallus · 03-05-2010 01:18PM

I Wouldn't begrudge anybody a place to live, and not everybodies social circumstances are the same OP.

I would like to know what you meant by

the inevitable problems that come with them

though.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 03-05-2010 01:18PM

I lost all sympathy for them just by reading the title.

Latchy · 03-05-2010 01:19PM

darkman2 wrote: »

Is this mixing of classes really going to work?

Classes ? The concept or the reality ?

tut tut , sounds so very pretentious celtic tiger 20th century ?

darkman2 · 03-05-2010 01:19PM

TskTsk wrote: »

I know where you're coming from, but I don't think that the mixing of classes is the issue. Most people living in middle-to-upper class developments don't actually mix with their neighbours anyway.

My own experience of living in an apartment block or housing estate where some of the units were given over to social housing, or rented to social welfare recipients, was that they did not show the same level of respect to their neighbours or the homeplace that owner-occupiers did. On top of that, you had the inevitable resentment that comes with seeing someone get for free what you paid a lot of money for.
I would not suggest that this is going to be the case for all those who've fallen on tough times. It's just the experience of many people out there, and unfortunately that's the sort of experience you don't easily forget.

Yes, that is my argument...I don't think anyone would be satisfied struggling to pay a mortgage, keep a job and a roof over their heads, and look after their family when a family, esspecially if they do act the prick in the area, are getting the same accomodation for nothing. I can see that frustrating people. Posters above seem to think this does not or won't happen.

They are just being politically correct.

ejmaztec · 03-05-2010 01:24PM

Biggins wrote: »

* It only takes one family of rich snobbish pricks to upset the entire country too ya know!

Is that the Fingleton family or the Seanie Fitzpatrick family?

:pac:

Biggins · 03-05-2010 01:26PM

On top of that, you had the inevitable resentment that comes with seeing someone get for free what you paid a lot of money for.

darkman2 wrote: »

Yes, that is my argument...I don't think anyone would be satisfied struggling to pay a mortgage, keep a job and a roof over their heads, and look after their family when a family, especially if they do act the prick in the area, are getting the same accommodation for nothing. I can see that frustrating people. Posters above seem to think this does not or won't happen.

As far as I can see, the only ones to initially cause trouble perhaps stemming from an undercurrent of resentment, is from those that have a self grown "chip on their shoulder" about other self seen "classes".

Those that are frustrated are so because they have a problem that is likely more so to boil over and cause trouble to others - not the families moving in that by far are just damn glad to be given a golden opportunity to perhaps move to a nicer, quieter place from a previous hell-hole they might have struggled to survive in!

...But fcuk no! 'Cos someone has a fcukin' chip on their shoulder, they should be automatically tarred and treated like dirt - and perhaps denied a chance too at integrating amid a nicer community!

Get the fcuk!!!

Dravokivich · 03-05-2010 01:29PM

the only thing i dont get... according to the news report... it says they are going to build more... surely we've enough built already?

darkman2 · 03-05-2010 01:31PM

Biggins wrote: »

Those that are frustrated are so because they have a problem that is likely more so to boil over and cause trouble to others - not the families moving in that by far are just damn glad to be given a golden opportunity to perhaps move to a nicer, quieter place from a previous hell-hole they might have struggled to survive in!

Or, more likely, being fcuked out of another area for causing trouble:rolleyes:

Victor_M · 03-05-2010 01:32PM

In my limited experience with social housing I have found that people who are given something for nothing have far less respect and far less appreciation for it.

Biggins · 03-05-2010 01:33PM

darkman2 wrote: »

Or, more likely, being fcuked out of another area for causing trouble:rolleyes:

O' yes, everyone on the social housing list is in that category.
We're back to that schite again!

ejmaztec · 03-05-2010 01:37PM

Latchy wrote: »

Classes ? The concept or the reality ?

tut tut , sounds so very pretentious celtic tiger 20th century ?

The whole population is upper class, I thought that was common knowledge.

I think it's the same in the UK, where the most deluded and resentful are the "new money" people, and they always kick up a stink when they think their status is under threat.

PeakOutput · 03-05-2010 01:38PM

nice troll

bluto63 · 03-05-2010 01:39PM

Mixing of classes is the best idea, rather than segregate them. In the Victorian times the upper class had no idea of the life of the lower class, so any problems that existed just worsened. By keeping them apart as you are pointing to, you're leading society down that road again. Dividing society up only creates problems whether they're race related or class related.

Latchy · 03-05-2010 01:48PM

ejmaztec wrote: »

The whole population is upper class, I thought that was common knowledge.

I think it's the same in the UK, where the most deluded and resentful are the "new money" people, and they always kick up a stink when they think their status is under threat.

Nail on head and the irony being that many of these '' new money people '' will originally have come from the poorest of backgrounds themselfs

And reminded of a quote

A community is democratic only when the humblest and weakest person can enjoy the highest civil, economic, and social rights that the biggest and most powerful possess.

A. Philip Randolph

PeakOutput · 03-05-2010 01:55PM

Latchy wrote: »

A community is democratic only when the humblest and weakest person can enjoy the highest civil, economic, and social rights that the biggest and most powerful possess.

A. Philip Randolph

sweet we are in a democracy after all

Ickle Magoo · 03-05-2010 01:55PM

darkman2 wrote: »

And then...

http://www.breakingnews.ie/business/treasury-holdings-signs-on-for-social-housing-development-456199.html

Is that fair Not against social housing btw just I always thought that the whole 30% of every estate has to be for "social housing" with all the inevitable problems that come with them is a bit daft and will be devisive for those who actually forked out alot of dosh and have to pay a mortgage. Next door the person may be getting their social housing for nothing. Does not seem fair to me. I wonder if a new estate was built in Ballsbridge does this rule apply?

Is this mixing of classes really going to work?

I think developers can just pay the council not to have to have social housing - or they can build/pay for more units in a less salubrious area.

On a side note, some of the worst neighbours I've ever had were home owners while some of the nicest on welfare/in social housing...I wouldn't automatically assume that their having a mortgage guarantees good neighbours - ime some property owners have less respect for their property and neighbours because they consider themselves well within their rights to do what the hell they want as owners, than people who have to make sure they don't fall out with a landlord...

Biggins · 03-05-2010 01:57PM

PeakOutput wrote: »

sweet we are in a democracy after all

Untill the Chinese government takes over anyway! :pac:

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

...some property owners have less respect for their property and neighbours because they consider themselves well within their rights to do what the hell they want as owners, than people who have to make sure they don't fall out with a landlord...

Well put.

starbelgrade · 03-05-2010 01:59PM

darkman2 wrote: »

And then...

http://www.breakingnews.ie/business/treasury-holdings-signs-on-for-social-housing-development-456199.html

Is that fair Not against social housing btw just I always thought that the whole 30% of every estate has to be for "social housing" with all the inevitable problems that come with them is a bit daft and will be devisive for those who actually forked out alot of dosh and have to pay a mortgage. Next door the person may be getting their social housing for nothing. Does not seem fair to me. I wonder if a new estate was built in Ballsbridge does this rule apply?

Is this mixing of classes really going to work?

The laws regarding social & affordable housing were brought into effect under very noble pretences - the idea being that instead of ghettoising lower paid workers, or the unemployed, that all new developments would include a level of 'social inclusion'.

In practice however, this has not always been the case. Your question about Ballsbridge is one area where it has not & does not work. In 'high end' developements, it has often been the case that developers, instead of allocating a percentage of houses/ apartments to social & affordabale, have instead paid "contributions" to the local council in order to avoid "bringing the prices down" of the other houses / apartments. In essence, a pay-off - not a backhander, but a pay off.

Another area where the scheme falls down is the income test. The scheme was set up to help lower paid workers to get onto the property ladder, however the income levels are as follows;

* Single income household: If your gross income (before tax) in the last income tax year was €40,000 or less, you are eligible.

* Two income households: Multiply the gross income (before tax) of the higher earner in the last income tax year by 2.5 and add the gross income of the other earner in the last income tax year. If the answer is €100,000 or less, you are eligible.

As you can see, the criteria for a "lower paid worker" are actually reasonably high & don't take into account any other factors such as personal saving or investments.

And finally, one has to question the relationship between local authorities, government policy, developers & the banks. In an inflated hosuing market, the policy was to get so called lower paid workers to take out mortgages from the banks - albeit at a reduced cost - to line the pockets of developers & bankers even more.

Yes, in theory, social & affordable housing is a great idea, but in practice, it has been in so many cases, a major fail.

So you bought a nice apartment in Dublin for a lot of money...

Comments