social housing in upmarket estate

SEPT 23 1989 · 24-10-2018 9:31pm

You never know but the peasants children might mix with yours and grow up to be better people

24-10-2018 9:42pm

If you have any neighbors at all, you run the risk of not getting on with them, or having someone who is trouble.
The generalising of council tenants in this thread is disgusting

Goldengirl · 24-10-2018 10:58pm

This post has been deleted.

seasidedub · 06-01-2019 2:49pm

The problem is that discussion about social housing in general is tricky because everybody is so afraid of being politically incorrect and the potential fallout from that. As a result, real discourse and the real feelings of real people don't get put out there.

Here's the thing:

No right-minded person wants anyone to be homeless. Homelessness causes instability in society in general and the starting point from which people can build lives is a home. Everybody also recognises that there will alway be a cohort who are unable to provide housing for themselves such as people whose illness or disability prevents them from being employable, disabled people who simply can't find anyone to employ them and so on. And I'd say it's a fair bet that 99% of Irish people are absolutely fine with taxes going to fund housing for such persons.

But: If you've paid 4,5,6,7 or 800,000 euro for a 3 or4 bed semi (which is quite possible in parts of Dubin at least) and are commuting 3 hours a day and paying 2000 euro a month for 2 kids in daycare, you want to live beside people who are most like you. Who have similar goals and aspirations and who contribute similarly. More than likely you'd be fine living beside someone you consider a "legit" social housing recipient - a disabled person for example, or lower paid workers who are paying a reduced rent to the housing authority. But you don't want to live beside a person or couple who have never worked or contributed and have many children, all born into social welfare. You don't want this because you don't believe it's fair, and you fear anti-social behaviour as well as the loss of value of your property.

So, this is not politically correct, but its reality. Sure, it goes back to the Victorian idea of the deserving and undeserving poor. We are supposed to be beyond that, but we're not, because it's real. If the corpo buys a 500k house next door to you and says: hey, do you want a couple who work but are badly paid and getting this at a reduced rent, or a person/couple with 7 kids who have never worked, have criminal convictions, been kicked out of private accomodation due to anti-social behaviour? What would 99.9% of people say? The working couple of course - because in this scenario the working couple are most like them and they believe they will act responsibily in the neighbourhood.

So: we all want an end to homelessness. But not beside us. And if the government forces all areas to be mixed we are not talking about housing provision, we are talking about social engineering. And that is very, very dodgy. Sure, the government wants to prevent ghettos like Ballymun forming again. But, is buying a 600k house for a family who have never worked the way to do it, when 2 houses could be bought in other areas? What it will do is make it difficult for builders to achieve the prices they believe they should achieve in certain areas if it's known that up to 20% is definitely going to be social housing. It will also push up prices and competition for housing in established areas with no social housing. Of course the government could offset this by purchasing in those areas - which means you could end up with social welfare tenants beside you in a house they could never afford which will be renovated probably to a higher standard than your own. They'll be paying out of social welfare money, which means it is free, or paying a stiffly reduced rent if they work. Like it or not, this will really annoy people. Again - because they want to live with people they perceive as being most like them.

It's all grand until the government's little social engineering project comes to a house near YOU.... and again, is it good value for money? Does a homeless family really need to be put in a 900k 4 bed semi in Dalkey?

myshirt · 06-01-2019 5:05pm

Social engineering?

What have you been smoking?

Fol20 · 06-01-2019 5:42pm

fg1406 wrote: »

My parents live in an upmarket estate and the council bought about 10 houses in an estate of approximately 120. The residents association went bananas but in the end, it kinda worked out. Any families being placed are interviewed and vetted. There is no trouble whatsoever from the council dwellers and to be honest you wouldn’t know which homes were council let ones. The only trouble in the estate is caused by spoilt brat teens of parents who just throw money at them and let them do what they want.

Im the opposite. I know of a spot in dublin where my friend lives and since the social block as been filled up. When the starting prices of the houses in the area were 750k plus, i was shocked at what was happening and would have expected much more. A handful of them are a menace to the place. Guards called multiple times. Stones nearly hit their baby when they were thrown at people. Camera on property taken down etc

Markcheese · 06-01-2019 5:58pm

There should be a vetting system for all social housing, and strict enough rules for all Tennants (and owners),
But then there has to be problem estates or areas where the "trouble makers" can go if kicked out of regular areas,(not many would want to live near that estate)
And you'd probably need another problem problem estate (not much more than a prison really) for the really difficult cases (like the Dutch do)... And nó One but no one wants to live anywhere near that.

LotharIngum · 06-01-2019 6:05pm

Fol20 wrote: »

Im the opposite. I know of a spot in dublin where my friend lives and since the social block as been filled up. A handful of them are amenace to the place. Guards called multiple times. Stones nearly hit their baby when they were thrown at people. Camera on property taken down etc

I have a friend living in such a place. I don't even visit him anymore because every time I do the little cnts throw stones at my car or the car of any other visitors to the place. ITs pot luck whether you leave the place after a visit with another dent in your car. My friend called into their parents one time and they told him he would be lucky if he wasn't burned out by morning. His car is a wreck now at this stage. There was even something poured all over it one night that destroyed the paint. He got it fixed on insurance but sure it happened again within a week.
He is trying to sell but everyone who comes into the area to look at houses for sale see the absolute sh1t hole of a house as they go into the estate and turn right back around.

I think he paid something like €450000 for his house about 3 years ago and it was a lovely neighborhood. But when the one family of scrotes moved in nearly 2 years ago everything changed.

And yes they are social welfare.

I grew up in a council estate myself and while its true that maybe 80% of the people in it were good people. That 20% had such an effect on the place and all of the rest of our lives that I will emigrate before I live in one again. They sucked the whole place in and were like a big hoover for any of the good impressionable kids growing up, sucking them in and fcuking their lives and their families lives up with breaking into houses, beating up kids just for being from a different country like we were … and drugs.

Oh yes the drugs. Whatever you think of being able to handle living in such a place yourself, always be aware of what you are exposing your impressionable kids to as they grow up. I would much rather pay the premium for living somewhere without that sh1te. And before anyone says this happens in well off neighborhoods too, yes it does, I agree, but the odds are vastly different.

metricspaces · 06-01-2019 6:23pm

bubblypop wrote: »

No it's not.
The person that bought their house, owns it. It is there's to do whatever they want with it. It's an asset for them.

The council tenant is just that, a tenant. So what if it costs 30 Euro a week, they will never own it, it will never be theirs.

Until some years later the Council lets the tenant buy the property for a small sum.

This is what happened previously in many council estates across the country. Reducing our stock of social housing to give a nice inheritance to others or big profit to the homeowner when they sold in the last boom, genius move.

What needs to be avoided is planning that ends up with a situation like Tallaght, Ballymun, Tallaght etc. This does not necessarily mean social housing needs to be in the same estate as privately bought houses.

Planners could mandate integrated schemes for towns or sites above a certain size. More expensive houses built together and cheaper social houses built together, but all within the one site or town.

We can all jump on our politically correct pedestal, but the cold reality of it is that a person on social housing list should not be housed in expensive houses. Not only for the social injustice of it to the hard working people who saved and bought privately, but it is a bad deal for the tax payer.

Similarly on the opposite end of the spectrum. People using the "family home" angle to stay in expensive houses. If you buy an expensive house and are unable to pay the mortgage then you should be forced out and to relocate to cheaper accommodation you can afford. The alternative is everyone else pays for your luxury.

The Government should be getting the best bang for our buck with social housing - this is not achieved by buying expensive houses. That is a clear waste of taxpayers money.

Gimme A Pound · 06-01-2019 8:52pm

hmmm wrote: »

Yes if you buy in an "upmarket" estate you may find that the developer has met their social housing obligations elsewhere.

No you should not be ashamed for choosing to house your family in an area where you don't have to take part in the anti-social housing lottery.

The only snobs I can see on this thread are the ones that are denying the very real problems people who lose the social housing lottery experience, when their lives, personal safety and financial security is ruined by a feral family moving in next door. It's disgraceful the way we allow small numbers of people wreck entire estates full of working people who have paid for their own homes and are contributing to society, and the way we have their supporters choosing to deny this.

Middle-class reverse snobs who have never had to deal with anti social problems are tedious and smug beyond belief. I don't think anyone is suggesting that absolutely every council tenant causes problems - of course not, look at all those who have had to live in the same estates as trouble-makers and the misery of having them as neighbours. So much so that there are people who are determined never to live in a council estate again once they get out. Because all it takes is a minority of intimidating thugs to make the place dreadful to live in. And even though the majority are nothing like that, there isn't a thing that they're able to do.

This thread is about people afraid that one of those minority of problem families, who don't work so they need social housing, will end up next door to them. It's not snobbery or "fascism" :rolleyes: - it's a very valid concern.

Spanish Eyes · 06-01-2019 9:05pm

Well think about it for a minute.

If the social housing tenants in your enclave are NOT working and never will be, I would be indandescent with rage (sorry). But if they are working and qualify that's fine.

My mantra.

Eric Cartman · 06-01-2019 9:12pm

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Well think about it for a minute.

If the social housing tenants in your enclave are NOT working and never will be, I would be indandescent with rage (sorry). But if they are working and qualify that's fine.

My mantra.

thats basically it. Nobody has ever complained about the people in social or affordable houses that actually work.

And however bad the adults may be, if you don't have the discipline and motivation to hold down a full time job, your kids are hardly going to turn out to be decent citizens who respect authority and are disciplined themselves. Thats the scary time in any life cycle of social housing, its fine at the start but once the kids start reaching 14-15 thats when the hell starts and doesn't really disappear till theres nobody under 21 left there.

hmmm · 06-01-2019 10:28pm

LotharIngum wrote: »

I grew up in a council estate myself and while its true that maybe 80% of the people in it were good people. That 20% had such an effect on the place and all of the rest of our lives that I will emigrate before I live in one again. They sucked the whole place in and were like a big hoover for any of the good impressionable kids growing up

It's the same message that comes up over and over again. We will not deal with the minority who behave like animals, and as a consequence everyone gets tarred with the same brush. I don't understand why politicians seem so afraid to tackle this issue, because it affects everyone - decent people looking for social housing can't get it, private purchasers are having to put up with their neighbourhoods being destroyed by these thugs. Let's build a Dutch style social housing jail in the middle of nowhere for the hardcore.

I thought Peter Casey was a bit of an eejit, but he hit on a raw nerve as evident from the election results.

An_Toirpin · 06-01-2019 11:04pm

hmmm wrote: »

It's the same message that comes up over and over again. We will not deal with the minority who behave like animals, and as a consequence everyone gets tarred with the same brush. I don't understand why politicians seem so afraid to tackle this issue, because it affects everyone - decent people looking for social housing can't get it, private purchasers are having to put up with their neighbourhoods being destroyed by these thugs. Let's build a Dutch style social housing jail in the middle of nowhere for the hardcore.

I thought Peter Casey was a bit of an eejit, but he hit on a raw nerve as evident from the election results.

Also it is worth saying, that many people dont believe in the premise of social housing. Although most people are sympathetic to social housing for people who lost their homes in a flood etc, many think young fit people shouldn't be given social homes at all, except in the rarest of circumstances. At the very least there should be a long waiting list 10 -15 years to weed out wasters (as there often is thankfully) and income assessment every ten years.

Eric Cartman · 06-01-2019 11:08pm

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Also it is worth saying, that many people dont believe in the premise of social housing. Although most people are sympathetic to social housing for people who lost their homes in a flood etc, many think young fit people shouldn't be given social homes at all, except in the rarest of circumstances. At the very least there should be a long waiting list 10 -15 years to weed out wasters (as there often is thankfully) and income assessment every ten years.

I think we really need to end this business of having a kid getting you bumped up the list and being an easy path to social housing, if only all these children knew how they were conceived as pawns to get some howeya a free gaf.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 06-01-2019 11:18pm

L1011 wrote: »

I'd guess that the majority of people advocating for more social housing live in an estate, though. The majority of the country do (look at urban vs rural population percentages) and I don't think the sole advocates for more social housing are farmers and those living in one-offs!

Estates aren’t the only housing. Most of the leafy suburbs are on streets not estates per say. And old buildings will not be affected by these new planning laws, so you can support all the social housing you like in most of the leafy suburbs, because the problems will be in new builds.

the_syco · 06-01-2019 11:33pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Yeah I notice how well dressed and tanned the kids are up in Darndale.

I don't think you have actually interacted with social housing tenants given your description.

I suspect the "all things communion party orientated" reference is related to travellers.

bubblypop wrote: »

It's disgusting the way some posters on here seem to think that council tenants are like ****e on their shoes.
Jesus, why do people think no one in council houses work?
It's clear to me that the majority of posters here have never even stood in a council estate, definitely wouldn't ever speak to a person living in a council house.

If council estates are such nice places, what's the issue in putting people into them?

Markcheese wrote: »

could even be someone from a foreign country...

Aside from the Roma gypsies, anyone who moves here, does so to work.

bubblypop wrote: »

The generalising of council tenants in this thread is disgusting

Again, if council tenants are such fine upstanding people, what's the issue of putting them all into one estate?

mariaalice wrote: »

Antisocial behavior should be dealt with by the law and if that is not working the law needs to be changed to support law-abiding citizens.

The same parties that support mixing social housing with normal housing usually don't seem to support heavy handed Garda responses.

L1011 · 06-01-2019 11:35pm

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Estates aren’t the only housing. Most of the leafy suburbs are on streets not estates per say. And old buildings will not be affected by these new planning laws, so you can support all the social housing you like in most of the leafy suburbs, because the problems will be in new builds.

The leafy suburbs, with their appallingly low density, consist of such a tiny % of total population of Dublin/Cork (don't think any other cities have equivalents) as to be irrelevant.

TCM · 07-01-2019 12:35am

Gatling wrote:

Sinn fein are pushing for up between 40% -70% social housing in new developments .

Can you provide reference/link in support of this comment please.

normakelle · 07-01-2019 12:36am

lots of people generalising about tenants in social housing. In the 70's, 80's, 90's there were a lot of social housing built. They were built for people who were working with families but generally only had one wage and couldn't afford mortgages,
Here in Cork people who had good jobs such as fords and dunlops got these houses and you paid a precentage of your wages.

In 1984 my parents got a brand new council house. It was basically a shell. There was no central heating only a fire you had to light for heat and hot water, No shower, no immersion. The kitchen had 2 presses, no tiling, no floor coverings and single glazed windows. But we were delighted to get it. My father was working full time, my mother was a stay at home mother as were most mothers back then. There was 5 kids, 3 bedrooms, one of which was a tiny boxroom.

My parents have put thousands of pounds into this house to make it habitable over the years for a house that will never be theirs. central heating, new windows, kitchen, shower , tiling etc.

Nowadays social tenants get top of the range houses but pay exactly the same rent as somebody in a run down apartment. It is a precentage of the income coming into the house, so if you are working it can be substantial.

So Don't judge all council tenants as scroungers most respect their homes and their neighbourhood.

TCM · 07-01-2019 12:41am

power pants wrote:

From my experience social housing tenants often appear to have more disposable income when it comes to clothing their kids in the best brands, fancy holidays and all things communion party orientated

"From my experience" Can you let us know what this experience actually is?

Fol20 · 07-01-2019 1:01am

hmmm wrote: »

It's the same message that comes up over and over again. We will not deal with the minority who behave like animals, and as a consequence everyone gets tarred with the same brush. I don't understand why politicians seem so afraid to tackle this issue, because it affects everyone - decent people looking for social housing can't get it, private purchasers are having to put up with their neighbourhoods being destroyed by these thugs. Let's build a Dutch style social housing jail in the middle of nowhere for the hardcore.

I thought Peter Casey was a bit of an eejit, but he hit on a raw nerve as evident from the election results.

Do you have any article about the dutch atyle system. Id be interested to read about it

Franz Von Peppercorn · 07-01-2019 2:10am

L1011 wrote: »

The leafy suburbs, with their appallingly low density, consist of such a tiny % of total population of Dublin/Cork (don't think any other cities have equivalents) as to be irrelevant.

Of course they are relevant as it is from there our “thought leaders” drive ideologies. Also I really mean established areas. Is any of clontarf an estate?

mariaalice · 07-01-2019 10:01am

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Of course they are relevant as it is from there our “thought leaders” drive ideologies. Also I really mean established areas. Is any of clontarf an estate?

Absolute nonsense there was an new estate built on Gracepark road in Durmcondra last year https://www.graceparkwood.ie/ It will have social housing.

Markcheese · 07-01-2019 3:56pm

hmmm wrote: »

. Let's build a Dutch style social housing jail in the middle of nowhere for the hardcore..

That Dutch model wasn't a simple, chuck them in and throw away the key... There was a lot of planning (it was on a small island), there was 24 hour policing, social workers and physiologists on site, and I think it was only about 14 housing units.. (could have been a bit more), you only got there by being the worst of the worst, some of these families had been going through the system with years... ... It was or is very very expensive to run...

tretorn · 07-01-2019 4:07pm

bubblypop wrote: »

Well, considering it's not that easy to get 'all the maintenance done ' !
I would prefer to own my own house.
I couldn't care less what anyone else paid for their house in the same estate or even if they pay 30 Euro a week.
It doesn't affect me at all.

It will affect you if the social housing tenants dump the remains of their dinner outside your house because they dont want to pay Panda to take away their rubbish.

Some poor unfortuneates living near me paid I million euros for houses that back onto settled social housing. I being a local wouldnt have touched them with a barge pole but the poor people who have bought are stepping in food remains every time they go outside the door. The next thing will be the rodents and the Council wont do a thing about it.

I have noticed two of the houses are now completely boarded up, this is when we are told we have a homeless crisis. These are perfectly good houses, presumably whoever was in them refused to pay rent and probably lived rent free for a coupleof years.

07-01-2019 4:36pm

tretorn wrote: »

It will affect you if the social housing tenants dump the remains of their dinner outside your house because they dont want to pay Panda to take away their rubbish.

, presumably whoever was in them refused to pay rent and probably lived rent free for a coupleof years.

I have two friends who refuse to pay for bins, neither are social housing tenants.

As to your last point, you just made that up & decided you are right.

Sleeper12 · 07-01-2019 4:43pm

Elessar wrote:

Prepare to have social housing in every new estate built from 2018 on. 10-30% of housing being built anywhere will now be for social tenants. Builders can't buy themselves out of it anymore. So us, our children and their children will have to play the 'social tenant lottery' where they could potentially be terrorised by the councils finest in their own estate (locations of social housing will not be indicated to purchasers). Expect prices of housing in estates with no social housing to explode.

If the builder has to provide social housing, let's say 30 houses, they can still buy 30 houses down the road instead of giving social housing in a prime area. They have been doing this for decades now in Dublin and the councils have been quite happy with the setup.

Eric Cartman · 07-01-2019 5:58pm

Sleeper12 wrote: »

If the builder has to provide social housing, let's say 30 houses, they can still buy 30 houses down the road instead of giving social housing in a prime area. They have been doing this for decades now in Dublin and the councils have been quite happy with the setup.

to be fair it makes sense. Social housing never increases the value of an area.

Sleeper12 · 07-01-2019 6:26pm

Eric Cartman wrote:

to be fair it makes sense. Social housing never increases the value of an area.

In small amounts social housing can fit in well but I'd also be rightly peed off if I spent a million plus in an upmarket area and 10 percent went to social housing. I'm not sure I'd want to live in an upmarket area now that I think about it.

social housing in upmarket estate

Comments