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

Would you buy beside social housing?

Options
1…34689…22

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    griffin100 wrote: »
    Paying a mortgage gives me the dignity of providing for myself without depending on handouts financed by the work of others.

    I depend on the state to pay my rent due to a serious illness. How undignified of me. I am somebody that you could end up living next to. Is that really so bad to you?

    When I was working (which I would love to still be doing), I was happy to pay to support people like me. No social welfare system is perfect. It would be virtually impossible to rid the system completely of wasters. Even just the manpower would never be fully there. To help people who really need it supported was worth that to me. Anyone who has room in their head to grouse about imagined undesirable neighbours and where their taxes go (when every single one of us benefits from taxation in this country) doesn’t know they’re alive, quite frankly. I wish I had your problems.


  • Options
    #153
    Redneck Reject
    Closed Accounts Posts: 587 ✭✭✭Redneck Reject


    To be honest,the Councils have a lot to answer for in their planning.The estate I live in is mostly elderly folks. This year a house on the corner went up for sale and within a week was taken down.The council bought it and moved in a family that are scumbags.There are 3 boy racer cars being revved at all hours of the night. Along with the teens roaming around with their Pitbull unmuzzled and on a lead. My neighbors who are in their 70's are frightened of them

    They clearly have no intention of conforming to social norms in the area. And are intent on living and spreading their deviate behaviour on the local community, which is unfair. So those defending social housing haven't a clue to what gets housed in their area.


  • Options
    #154
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »
    Maybe to the likes of you but to me I was buying a home to live in and not for investment. I lost €28k on my home because I wasn’t prepared to stay in the area any longer and so I cut my losses, I had to take a loan out to pay off the mortgage and all because I had absolutely scumbags living on both sides of me who made my life a misery.

    And what sort of a stupid question is ‘what does paying a mortgage have to do with it?’ I was paying almost €1000 a month and the dole scrounging scumbags next door were paying nothing for an identical house. I think my paying a grand a month at least warrants the right to some decent quality of life.

    So you have a home? Great! You can decorate it however you like, make changes, extend as much as planning allows and sell it if circumstances change. And all going well, you’ll have a paid off roof over your head for retirement. And if you want to downsize then, you can.

    Answer truthfully - would you give up your house and mortgage if you were given a house by social welfare for whatever rate your neighbours pay? Forget whether this is realistic or not. For argument’s sake - if tomorrow you were give the same house at social welfare rates, would you take it? Yes or no.

    Also, €1,000 a month for a mortgage on a house? Some people are paying 50% more than that in rent for one bed apartments in Dublin, making it much harder to get deposits together to buy.


  • Options
    #155
    Samuel T. Cogley
    Registered Users Posts: 10,684 ✭✭✭✭Samuel T. Cogley


    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »
    So you have a home? Great! You can decorate it however you like, make changes, extend as much as planning allows and sell it if circumstances change. And all going well, you’ll have a paid off roof over your head for retirement. And if you want to downsize then, you can.

    Answer truthfully - would you give up your house and mortgage if you were given a house by social welfare for whatever rate your neighbours pay? Forget whether this is realistic or not. For argument’s sake - if tomorrow you were give the same house at social welfare rates, would you take it? Yes or no.

    Also, €1,000 a month for a mortgage on a house? Some people are paying 50% more than that in rent for one bed apartments in Dublin, making it much harder to get deposits together to buy.


    It would depend on the neighbours but you'd be much better off putting the money into a pension than paying off a mortgage if you're guaranteed the home until you die like you are with social housing.


  • Options
    #156
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »
    It would depend on the neighbours but you'd be much better off putting the money into a pension than paying off a mortgage if you're guaranteed the home until you die like you are with social housing.

    Guaranteed? I’ve a terminal illness and I’ve to justify keeping my rent allowance yearly.

    The person getting the social welfare housing probably doesn’t have the money to put into a pension scheme. That was the “unrealistic” part of the question. I read these threads amazed that people are looking on almost in envy at social welfare recipients. I can’t believe that people who are obviously fit enough to work and have their health think the position the likes of me is in is in any way enviable. You will never rid the system completely of wasters. In order to support somebody like me, wasters are a necessary evil. And the social welfare recipient you end up living next to could be me, not them. And I’m a good neighbour. Having a paying job and a mortgage doesn’t mean you won’t be the neighbour from hell. So is it disruption people are worried about or is it just plain snobbery? Because if it’s disruption, an employed neighbour with a mortgage won’t guarantee peace. It’s snobbery more than many people would care to admit.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    Samuel T. Cogley
    Registered Users Posts: 10,684 ✭✭✭✭Samuel T. Cogley


    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »
    Guaranteed? I’ve a terminal illness and I’ve to justify keeping my rent allowance yearly.

    The person getting the social welfare housing probably doesn’t have the money to put into a pension scheme. That was the “unrealistic” part of the question. I read these threads amazed that people are looking on almost in envy at social welfare recipients. I can’t believe that people who are obviously fit enough to work and have their health think the position the likes of me is in is in any way enviable. You will never rid the system completely of wasters. In order to support somebody like me, wasters are a necessary evil. And the social welfare recipient you end up living next to could be me, not them. And I’m a good neighbour. Having a paying job and a mortgage doesn’t mean you won’t be the neighbour from hell. So it disruption people are worried about or is it just plain snobbery? Because if it’s disruption, an employed neighbour with a mortgage won’t guarantee peace.


    No but there is a correlation between being a waster and an anti-social asshat. I'm sorry but there simply is which is why people honestly say they would prefer to live somewhere without social housing. I live in Roddy Doyle land and even my neighbours are concerned about who the council is going to lump into the estate with the house they've recently bought.


  • Options
    #158
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »
    No but there is a correlation between being a waster and an anti-social asshat. I'm sorry but there simply is which is why people honestly say they would prefer to live somewhere without social housing. I live in Roddy Doyle land and even my neighbours are concerned about who the council is going to lump into the estate with the house they've recently bought.

    How much of a correlation? How many of the social welfare recipients of the land would be classed as wasters/anti-social asshats? My neighbours don’t know I’m in receipt of social welfare and would be surprised to discover that I am, I think (don’t look seriously ill etc.). You’re not going to hear from the ones who cause no trouble, are you? So how is it quantified?


  • Options
    #159
    Samuel T. Cogley
    Registered Users Posts: 10,684 ✭✭✭✭Samuel T. Cogley


    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »
    How much of a correlation? How many of the social welfare recipients of the land would be classed as wasters/anti-social asshats? My neighbours don’t know I’m in receipt of social welfare and would be surprised to discover that I am, I think (don’t look seriously ill etc.). You’re not going to hear from the ones who cause no trouble, are you? So how is it quantified?


    You only need to look at places with a high concentration of social housing. They have issues that private estates don't have. You can look at places like Kilbarrack that have settled enormously since they moved to majority private ownership.


    Not all social welfare reciepients are wasters and not everyone is social housing is a waster. Not all wasters are anti-social. It's beyond obvious though that in areas with high concentrations of social housing have a higher concentration of people with significant social issues.


  • Options
    #160
    Bargain_Hound
    Registered Users Posts: 521 ✭✭✭Bargain_Hound


    Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »
    Maybe to the likes of you but to me I was buying a home to live in and not for investment. I lost €28k on my home because I wasn’t prepared to stay in the area any longer and so I cut my losses, I had to take a loan out to pay off the mortgage and all because I had absolutely scumbags living on both sides of me who made my life a misery.

    And what sort of a stupid question is ‘what does paying a mortgage have to do with it?’ I was paying almost €1000 a month and the dole scrounging scumbags next door were paying nothing for an identical house. I think my paying a grand a month at least warrants the right to some decent quality of life.

    Similar issue here. New build... Sold up very shortly after council moved in travelers next door to us. It was a piss take. Lost some money, nowhere near 28k though. Felt very lucky to even sell it given the neighboring friends.


  • Options
    #161
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »
    You only need to look at places with a high concentration of social housing. They have issues that private estates don't have. You can look at places like Kilbarrack that have settled enormously since they moved to majority private ownership.


    Not all social welfare reciepients are wasters and not everyone is social housing is a waster. Not all wasters are anti-social. It's beyond obvious though that in areas with high concentrations of social housing have a higher concentration of people with significant social issues.

    The thinking is that mixed developments would help diffuse some of these issues, with younger generations seeing people go out to work every day. People are resistance to the idea of trying this idea of stopping ghettoisation even though it could help in the long run. No shit that solely social housing developments run into these problems. No thought given to whether it could benefit society in the future to mix housing. Just “Waaaa, why do I have to pay and they don’t?” ignoring the benefits of homeownership as if there are none. Short-term thinking. “It’s not better straight away so I don’t want it”.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    Mad_maxx
    Registered Users Posts: 13,505 ✭✭✭✭Mad_maxx


    Redneck Reject wrote: »
    To be honest,the Councils have a lot to answer for in their planning.The estate I live in is mostly elderly folks. This year a house on the corner went up for sale and within a week was taken down.The council bought it and moved in a family that are scumbags.There are 3 boy racer cars being revved at all hours of the night. Along with the teens roaming around with their Pitbull unmuzzled and on a lead. My neighbors who are in their 70's are frightened of them

    They clearly have no intention of conforming to social norms in the area. And are intent on living and spreading their deviate behaviour on the local community, which is unfair. So those defending social housing haven't a clue to what gets housed in their area.

    Scumbags are prioritised when it comes to housing people on the waiting list


  • Options
    #163
    LuasSimon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,208 ✭✭✭LuasSimon


    The government don’t give a toss where the growing scumbag population are housed as long as it’s not in Donnybrook , ballsbridge and other parts of south dublin .

    It’s getting worse in many towns and villages around the country as the council land scum in beside people who paid for their houses and now their lives are been made hell by those who paid nothing for the house their in


  • Options
    #164
    InTheShadows
    Closed Accounts Posts: 727 ✭✭✭InTheShadows


    griffin100 wrote: »
    Paying a mortgage gives me the dignity of providing for myself without depending on handouts financed by the work of others.

    The vast majority of social housing tenents work.


  • Options
    #165
    Bargain_Hound
    Registered Users Posts: 521 ✭✭✭Bargain_Hound


    The vast majority of the 30% in our development didn’t.

    We got to know quite a few families benefiting from social housing. But, ill always remember One particular couple with 3 children (neither parent worked) who use to constantly complain to us about how much their wedding was going to cost...


  • Options
    #166
    InTheShadows
    Closed Accounts Posts: 727 ✭✭✭InTheShadows


    Redneck Reject wrote: »
    To be honest,the Councils have a lot to answer for in their planning.The estate I live in is mostly elderly folks. This year a house on the corner went up for sale and within a week was taken down.The council bought it and moved in a family that are scumbags.There are 3 boy racer cars being revved at all hours of the night. Along with the teens roaming around with their Pitbull unmuzzled and on a lead. My neighbors who are in their 70's are frightened of them

    They clearly have no intention of conforming to social norms in the area. And are intent on living and spreading their deviate behaviour on the local community, which is unfair. So those defending social housing haven't a clue to what gets housed in their area.

    That's unfortunate but what's that got to do with the vast majority of social housing tenents? I don't judge everyone in private housing by the actions of a minority of scumbags in their estates.

    I won't mention the area but we had a guy murder someone in an estate not too far from me a few years gone by, the perp who's since been convicted and jailed for the crime was a mortgage payer in a private estate. Does that mean I should view everyone living in that particular estate as scumbags?


  • Options
    #167
    InTheShadows
    Closed Accounts Posts: 727 ✭✭✭InTheShadows


    Bargain_Hound wrote: »
    The vast majority of the 30% in our development didn’t.

    Well I was born and grew up in social housing as well as bought a house years later in a social and affordable estate and I know for a fact the majority worked. My sister lives in a social housing area to this very day and at the weekend or evening the estate is packed with cars but during the week there is hardly any. Maybe they all out robbing houses ?


  • Options
    #168
    shenanagans
    Registered Users Posts: 896 ✭✭✭shenanagans


    Anyone uncomfortable living near social housing may as well take themselves out of the new builds market at the moment as councils seem to be buying up large numbers of new builds. At least that's what I've seen over the last few months.


  • Options
    #169
    Fr. Pat Noise
    Registered Users Posts: 44 ✭Fr. Pat Noise


    Social housing or hap tenants = Gangs of children and teenagers wearing cheap black padded jackets, grey track suits and nike runners hanging around breaking stuff, dumping rubbish and intimidating residents while their uncaring parents watch sky on their big flat screen while wearing their pyjamas or English football jersey /tracksuit combo!


  • Options
    #170
    LuasSimon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,208 ✭✭✭LuasSimon


    There is a growing percentage of the unemployed on this country that are bad news , in many instances they don’t want to work and get away with it ... not alone this but they want to top up their 500 a week social welfare with petty crime like robbing and drug dealing to ensure they have as much if not more than the average Joe soap working . Then they get the free house so now they are ahead of joe soap working .
    These individuals for the past decade or two are having far larger families than Joe soap working because joe soap can’t afford children so it’s s ever growing problem housing these people .
    Wait until all the joe soaps working cop on and join the welfare types who are as well off as him.


  • Options
    #171
    Edgware
    Registered Users Posts: 5,875 ✭✭✭Edgware


    Fr. Pat Noise wrote: »
    Social housing or hap tenants = Gangs of children and teenagers wearing cheap black padded jackets, grey track suits and nike runners hanging around breaking stuff, dumping rubbish and intimidating residents while their uncaring parents watch sky on their big flat screen while wearing their pyjamas or English football jersey /tracksuit combo!
    The Scottissh football club jersey/ tracksuit is also a popular combination


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    InTheShadows
    Closed Accounts Posts: 727 ✭✭✭InTheShadows


    LuasSimon wrote: »
    There is a growing percentage of the unemployed on this country that are bad news , in many instances they don’t want to work and get away with it ... not alone this but they want to top up their 500 a week social welfare with petty crime like robbing and drug dealing to ensure they have as much if not more than the average Joe soap working . Then they get the free house so now they are ahead of joe soap working .
    These individuals for the past decade or two are having far larger families than Joe soap working because joe soap can’t afford children so it’s s ever growing problem housing these people .
    Wait until all the joe soaps working cop on and join the welfare types who are as well off as him.

    Can you please provide accurate facts and figures for this 500 euro a week social welfare payments and free houses. Thanks.


  • Options
    #173
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,902 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    I'd buy it.

    I couldnt care less that my neighbours might have less money than me or might be working class.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #174
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    I'd buy it.

    I couldnt care less that my neighbours might have less money than me or might be working class.

    hello strawman


  • Options
    #175
    Cee-Jay-Cee
    Registered Users Posts: 12,235 ✭✭✭✭Cee-Jay-Cee


    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »
    So you have a home? Great! You can decorate it however you like, make changes, extend as much as planning allows and sell it if circumstances change. And all going well, you’ll have a paid off roof over your head for retirement. And if you want to downsize then, you can.

    Answer truthfully - would you give up your house and mortgage if you were given a house by social welfare for whatever rate your neighbours pay? Forget whether this is realistic or not. For argument’s sake - if tomorrow you were give the same house at social welfare rates, would you take it? Yes or no.

    Also, €1,000 a month for a mortgage on a house? Some people are paying 50% more than that in rent for one bed apartments in Dublin, making it much harder to get deposits together to buy.

    I live in Donegal. I don’t care what people who chose to live in Dublin are paying, that is there choice.

    No I would not give up my home to take up residence in a house at social Welfare rates. I have a beautiful house in the country and nothing could entice me to move into an estate in a town, I wouldn’t accept it even if it was free.


  • Options
    #176
    Mad_maxx
    Registered Users Posts: 13,505 ✭✭✭✭Mad_maxx


    shenanagans wrote: »
    Anyone uncomfortable living near social housing may as well take themselves out of the new builds market at the moment as councils seem to be buying up large numbers of new builds. At least that's what I've seen over the last few months.

    It's why I'd never buy new, second hand and keep a budget for improvements


  • Options
    #177
    Mad_maxx
    Registered Users Posts: 13,505 ✭✭✭✭Mad_maxx


    LuasSimon wrote: »
    There is a growing percentage of the unemployed on this country that are bad news , in many instances they don’t want to work and get away with it ... not alone this but they want to top up their 500 a week social welfare with petty crime like robbing and drug dealing to ensure they have as much if not more than the average Joe soap working . Then they get the free house so now they are ahead of joe soap working .
    These individuals for the past decade or two are having far larger families than Joe soap working because joe soap can’t afford children so it’s s ever growing problem housing these people .
    Wait until all the joe soaps working cop on and join the welfare types who are as well off as him.

    The unemployed have been told that they are just as entitled to all of the things which working people desire, we now live in a society which is completely shameless and by that I mean the TV show


  • Options
    #178
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,902 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    hello strawman

    The entire thread is just about classist snobbery. Sorry if it offends you to state the obvious.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #179
    corks finest
    Registered Users Posts: 8,640 ✭✭✭corks finest


    My advice is NO - I'm living in a Cluid housing association house with my teen - divorce / lack of funds etc landed me here' ,
    honestly if you've bobs to build/ buy anywhere other than in/ near social housing do it-

    nightmare of an existence at times - noise / hassle/ blaring music/ dogs all around/ kids who are left to their own devices - up to 11 and later at nighttime/ irresponsible parenting,booze / drug fuelled partying etc etc etc
    Into this mix are ordinary people who keep themselves to themselves
    but the scrotes have kids who have kids and do it goes on,
    My teen who's ambition is to become a teacher is studying hard to make a life for himself to leave this quagmire
    P.S. sorry for this seemingly
    mad rant buts it's from the heart bud STAY AD FAR FROM SOCIAL HOUSING AS YOU CAN


  • Options
    #180
    Samuel T. Cogley
    Registered Users Posts: 10,684 ✭✭✭✭Samuel T. Cogley


    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »
    The thinking is that mixed developments would help diffuse some of these issues, with younger generations seeing people go out to work every day. People are resistance to the idea of trying this idea of stopping ghettoisation even though it could help in the long run. No shit that solely social housing developments run into these problems. No thought given to whether it could benefit society in the future to mix housing. Just “Waaaa, why do I have to pay and they don’t?” ignoring the benefits of homeownership as if there are none. Short-term thinking. “It’s not better straight away so I don’t want it”.


    I'm all for mixed developments, it's the only way forward really. However there has to be proper enforcement and that applies to everyone in the estate, social housing or otherwise.


    However on the short term point, why should people have to wait long term to live in the peace and quiet? You don't buy a house to deal with other people's social issues.


    If you're anti-social then you should be in a shipping container somewhere.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    Samuel T. Cogley
    Registered Users Posts: 10,684 ✭✭✭✭Samuel T. Cogley


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    I'd buy it.

    I couldnt care less that my neighbours might have less money than me or might be working class.


    Put your money where your mouth is - pick up a bargain in Darndale.


Advertisement