Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
12-02-2020, 21:03   #16
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 518
Social mix works. Chapelizod is probably the most socially mixed area in Dublin and a great example of how social mixing works. 100% social building will likely upset that balance. It's not often you get residents in an area advocating for a social/affordable mix. I think they are right.
Varta is offline  
Thanks from:
Advertisement
12-02-2020, 21:10   #17
beauf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 16,905
Another thread about nimbyism in someone else's area....

More about it here...

https://amp.irishexaminer.com/breaki...te-981364.html
beauf is offline  
12-02-2020, 21:10   #18
nox001
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 22,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mongfinder General View Post
Don't count your chickens. If the price is right the council may slam up a Lego set over night.
Surrounded by our own land and outside that by people who would sell a family member before they would sell a blade of grass.
nox001 is offline  
(4) thanks from:
12-02-2020, 21:19   #19
listermint
Registered User
 
listermint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Palmer View Post
How would you feel if 20% of an asset you own was lost? It would be useful if there was an article or report so people could see why they are objecting.

Coolock residents are rightly concerned with the plans for development there. Huge build to let apartments on the site of a former employer in the area.
What utter drivel is this.

There are not houses in or anywhere near chapelizod dropping 20% in value by some social units going up there.

For someone who claims to know accommodation ray this is an awful load of codswallop. Chapelizods location and access to the city won't drop anyone's house value.

You typing this with a straight face..

Last edited by listermint; 12-02-2020 at 22:10.
listermint is offline  
12-02-2020, 23:37   #20
LeineGlas
Registered User
 
LeineGlas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Palmer View Post
How would you feel if 20% of an asset you own was lost?
Jesus Christ. This is A&P in a nutshell.

Let poor people die on the on the streets because you want to accumulate wealth.
LeineGlas is offline  
Advertisement
12-02-2020, 23:40   #21
bubblypop
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 8,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by nox001 View Post
Would you like to live beside social housing? I certainly wouldn’t and would strongly object. Crap like this is why I’m glad to be living rurally and zero risk of any of this crap.
What's your problem living beside social housing?
And no, I wouldn't have any problems living beside any.
bubblypop is offline  
(3) thanks from:
12-02-2020, 23:41   #22
Fann Linn
Registered User
 
Fann Linn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 4,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeineGlas View Post
Jesus Christ. This is A&P in a nutshell.

Let poor people die on the on the streets because you want to accumulate wealth.

And people wonder why the Shinners cleaned up.
Fann Linn is offline  
(5) thanks from:
13-02-2020, 09:12   #23
Kivaro
Registered User
 
Kivaro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,511
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeineGlas View Post
Jesus Christ. This is A&P in a nutshell.

Let poor people die on the on the streets because you want to accumulate wealth.
Not getting a free home for life in a particular location in Dublin, to be paid for by the Irish worker, does not equate to poor people dying on the streets.
Kivaro is offline  
13-02-2020, 09:13   #24
Xterminator
Registered User
 
Xterminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 3,808
Quote:
Would you like to live beside social housing? I certainly wouldn’t and would strongly object. Crap like this is why I’m glad to be living rurally and zero risk of any of this crap.
so whats your wise suggestion for the 100,000 social & affordable homes that SF plan to build, which funny enough is the same number FF have in their manifesto? The houses are badly needed, there are people dying literally for the want of a roof over their head and yet you would personally object, delay and deter much needed housing because you don't want 'that kind of people' living near you?

The arguments you see here against social housing tenants are exactly the same ones used by racists who say they don't want to live next to black people. Well im not surprised because if you can hate a whole class of people then it doesn't take much to transfer that hate to another group who are not your type.

Quote:
“We put all the cops in minority neighborhoods . . . Because that’s where all the crime is.” Michael Bloomberg’
Xterminator is offline  
Advertisement
13-02-2020, 10:27   #25
nox001
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 22,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by bubblypop View Post
What's your problem living beside social housing?
And no, I wouldn't have any problems living beside any.
Anti-social behavior, crime, no respect for property or area, why should they live for free/cheap beside people who are working hard everyday to pay for their house etc etc.

I spent a brief period of time living beside a social house when house sharing in an otherwise very nice estate and it’s the only house I’ve ever had hassle living beside. House was bought by the council after I moved in. It was a disgrace to have them living among otherwise normal, high tax paying families and young professionals. They were a family with young kids too so you can only imagine when their kids get older or others get into the area.

Yes you will say that’s one example and they aren’t all like that, correct of course but there is a high percentage of bad and chances are you will have at least some bad eggs living beside you if there is social housing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xterminator View Post
so whats your wise suggestion for the 100,000 social & affordable homes that SF plan to build, which funny enough is the same number FF have in their manifesto? The houses are badly needed, there are people dying literally for the want of a roof over their head and yet you would personally object, delay and deter much needed housing because you don't want 'that kind of people' living near you?
Purpose built social housing estates.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Xterminator View Post
The arguments you see here against social housing tenants are exactly the same ones used by racists who say they don't want to live next to black people. Well im not surprised because if you can hate a whole class of people then it doesn't take much to transfer that hate to another group who are not your type.
That is total rubbish to be fair. There are very strong grounds and many reasons for not wanting to live beside social housing or why people paying for their home should not have to live beside them.
nox001 is offline  
13-02-2020, 10:37   #26
bubblypop
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 8,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by nox001 View Post
Anti-social behavior, crime, no respect for property or area, why should they live for free/cheap beside people who are working hard everyday to pay for their house etc etc.

I spent a brief period of time living beside a social house when house sharing in an otherwise very nice estate and it’s the only house I’ve ever had hassle living beside. House was bought by the council after I moved in. It was a disgrace to have them living among otherwise normal, high tax paying families and young professionals. They were a family with young kids too so you can only imagine when their kids get older or others get into the area.

Yes you will say that’s one example and they aren’t all like that, correct of course but there is a high percentage of bad and chances are you will have at least some bad eggs living beside you if there is social housing.



Purpose built social housing estates.




That is total rubbish to be fair. There are very strong grounds and many reasons for not wanting to live beside social housing or why people paying for their home should not have to live beside them.
This is all rubbish.

'It was a disgrace to have them living among otherwise normal, high tax paying families and young professionals'

People who live in social housing are not normal? Are you actually serious.
Sometimes I read your posts & I honestly wonder if you are posting from the 1950s.
The old fashioned & discriminatory remarks you make on here are quite honestly unbelievable!

You seem to more bothered by people 'not paying'for houses & living beside people who buy their home. Why should it bother you if the person next door owns their house or not? It's really none of your business! What if the person next door bought their house 35 years ago? Does it matter that they paid ten times less then someone else in the same estate?

Just one more thing, children living in social housing benefit much more from having their community a mixture. It's good for them to see workers & see what they can achieve.

You're a snob.
bubblypop is offline  
Thanks from:
13-02-2020, 10:40   #27
Xterminator
Registered User
 
Xterminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 3,808
Quote:
Anti-social behavior, crime, no respect for property or area, why should they live for free/cheap beside people who are working hard everyday to pay for their house etc et
yes, that's the same argument you see on fox news too .. . them mexicans are all rapists and criminals. Of course they are not all rapists but the fear of one rapists means you should shun the whole race, build a big wall, and ignore any suffering caused. keep them in their own 'estates'.

and that's your argument in a nutshell.

here is a thought for you. the vast majority of social housing candidates are decent people. It is not the fault of the good people in social housing that the courts in ireland do not punish low level criminality. It is not their fault the council rarely evict bad tenants. But we will collectively shun and punish them because of the actions of the minority.

instead of say, changing the law for people who commit anit social actions, introduce enforceable asbos and make the council live up to its responsibilities?

No lets tar them all with the same brush. its easier.
Xterminator is offline  
(4) thanks from:
13-02-2020, 11:38   #28
Spanish Eyes
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 10,832
The only issue I see with this development is that the Council should be obliged to set aside 20% or whatever for affordable housing, just like the 20% in private developments!

Does anyone have a mock up of the design or where would I find it.

I don't live in that area (Chapelizod), but I know it well. The site is magnificent, backing on to the Phoenix Park, across the road from a lovely 19th century church, on the banks of the Liffey, bus to town in 15 or so minutes and so on. It is a prime site. If designed well it could be great as there is nothing else along that road besides a car dealership and the boat clubs.

There is another vacant site near the bridge and AFAIK it is council owned too, has been derelict for donkeys years. That's next I'd say.

The site under consideration is on the left here.

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3474...7i16384!8i8192

This is the other vacant site on the left.
https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3483...7i16384!8i8192
Spanish Eyes is offline  
13-02-2020, 14:24   #29
Ray Palmer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by is_that_so View Post
No lack of understanding at all I just value it as a home and a place I am happy to live. When or if I sell it'll be to move to another home. I am also happy to welcome new people to the neighbourhood as it means they don't have to live in a field in a place they've never heard of.
That is not what you said. You said it had no effect until selling. It might not bother you but that is not to say others aren't bothered. You don't get to dismiss the effects for others. If they want to complain they have valid reason whether you are bothered or not.
Ray Palmer is offline  
Thanks from:
13-02-2020, 15:33   #30
Nermal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xterminator View Post
so whats your wise suggestion for the 100,000 social & affordable homes that SF plan to build, which funny enough is the same number FF have in their manifesto?
Build them to lower standards on cheap land outside the M50. Expensive sites in desireable locations like Chapelizod should be sold for private development.

Building A-rated homes on valuable land to effectively give away is moronic policy.
Nermal is offline  
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet