more nimbyism in Chapelizod ***Read Mod Note in OP***

cgcsb wrote: »

Some of the attitudes here are really unbelievable. Where are nurses, teachers etc. Suposed to live? They can't buy a house or rent one.

The I'm alright Jack attitude and having no issue with crippling rents for younger generations and being locked out of buying a house and labelling them as whining millenials who don't work hard enough or everyone on social housing or social housing lists. The very worst of me feiners who predominantly vote FG. Yes, let's put them lot back into power.

woohoo!!! wrote: »

The I'm alright Jack attitude and having no issue with crippling rents for younger generations and being locked out of buying a house and labelling them as whining millenials who don't work hard enough or everyone on social housing or social housing lists. The very worst of me feiners who predominantly vote FG. Yes, let's put them lot back into power.

Makes a change from the 21 year olds on the vox pops saying they have no prospect of buying a house , guess what the previous generation didn't either at 21 and sinn Fein won't change that

This situation is unique, it is the first site that is being built that has been rammed down the throat of the locals. As far as im aware there was a new law introduced by the last government which allows them to do what they want with a site with no consultation. This is a very serious thing to be giving the government.
This case is alot more important than people here seem to realise. I will see if I can find out what this legislation is.

Look at the long running thread about how a person had to sell their house because of anti social behaviour from mixing social / private housing and how their life was made a misery.

I completely understand that people have concerns about how a social development could impact their lives. At the end of the day, you need to look after yourself and your family.

AulWan wrote: »

There is having conerns, and there is nimbyism.

Its time the government told these objectors who are objecting purely on the basis of a development being social housing, to get over themselves.

People need places to live, end of story.

How many times have social only housing schemes become a disaster?

No learnings from previous mistakes.

AulWan wrote: »

Which is exactly WHY social housing should never be built in that way again, and should always be mixed in with private, affordable, and privately rented estates.

Social housing is not always a disaster and doesn't always mean anti-social tenants.

I am a private owner who lives in a mature private estate with all of the above, and there are have been no increases in anti-social behaviour that I have seen, from the houses within the estate that have been purchased by the Council.

It can and does work.

Well I left an Estate where houses bought by the Council disimproved the area, both in quality of people / transiency and the look of the area.

Personally, I'd a bad experience and I'd not be in a hurry back. I was driven mad and my family urged me to sell for my own sanity.

imonboard wrote: »

The bottom line here is that any development should be mixed. That is what the people want here, so the thread title should be changed. It is not about nimbyism, its about the legislation that someone needs to challenge. I hope they win and this legislation is gotten rid of.

Which legislation?

Can the model of mixing social housing with private housing in expensive areas ever really work though.

Its human nature that if a couple kill themselves working and saving for years and buy a home for 400K that they are going to be pissed off when their next door neighbour has been given the house just on the back of having a few kids.

You also will never value something you didnt have to work for as much as someone who did. Hence the resentment . Someone mentioned the thread about a mixed estate in Tallaght and how the teenage scrotes around the estate made life hell for everyone, no respect for anyone as their family got everything free.

Its all well and good trying to make people feel bad for not wanting to live in or near these estates but in the real world its very hard to square the circle of people killing themselves to pay the mortgage, childcare, bills, commuting , living next door in the same house to people who were just given it because they were on a list.

I agree that social housing should not be on prime locations in cities, its a real kick on the face to your nurse, teacher, etc that has to commute from Mullingar or rent for life in Dublin

AulWan wrote: »

So you tar all with one brush? Lucky you were in a position to sell.

I've experienced private owners who were also a complete nightmare to live beside. Tormented and harassed any kid playing outside, thought he owned the road.

Thankfully the old bastard died, and his house was sold to the council. Much nicer neighbours now. Vast improvement.

I sold luckily because the rent yields were good. I think then there were 2 owner / Occupiers left in a road of 36 houses. The place became known more as a renter area than homes. I'd not take a chance again. It's too much risk.

I'd not mind a narky aul ****e like that. I'd say everywhere has one.

I don't recognise one here, so it must be me.