more nimbyism in Chapelizod Read Mod Note in OP

Nermal · 14-02-2020 8:35am

ExoPolitic wrote: »

Whilst I understand why some people don't want new social housing built in the capital and parrot "why does it have to be in Dublin" , Dublin does require it. Imagine the state of Dublin if there were no cleaners/ sweepers, nobody in employment in retail or any other lower paid job... The city would cease to function.

Cleaners and sweepers being incapable of commuting, of course.

woohoo!!! · 14-02-2020 8:37am

AFAIK the Council won't consider 100% social housing if there is a very large amount of it in an area, and will therefore consider 100% if otherwise.
My estate of 200 or so houses has social and affordable, some ejits but no big problems either. They're to finish off the estate with 35 social houses but this wasn't advertised, as in the planning permissions was saying it was going to give 3 houses for part v or 10%social housing requirement. Now, I don't have an issue with it, but again this is not being advertised. It would be better and more transparent if they was done up front and centre and not a deal done behind closed doors with a housing body after the planing permission was granted.

Ray Palmer · 14-02-2020 10:21am

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

How so? They don’t own the house so its value doesn’t benefit them.

If the state provide housing in an area where the rent is €1000 a month and also provide a place in an area that is €2000 somebody is getting a greater benefit. If you are comparing that as equivalent salary it is a substantial amount. It is an extra €12k a year after tax equivalent which is roughly €24k before tax.

They also do benefit from price rises if they apply to buy the property which is sold at a huge discount.

People in london became millionaires from buy their council housing and then selling it.

14-02-2020 10:32am

Ray Palmer wrote: »

They also do benefit from price rises if they apply to buy the property which is sold at a huge discount.

People in london became millionaires from buy their council housing and then selling it.

The state should never sell off their social housing stock.
It's supposed to be for people that cannot house themselves. When they can house themselves, then they should go buy a house for themselves.
If they can't, they stay in social housing, getting moved into suitable accommodation at their needs change.
Eg, when a family has grown up, the remaining parents should be moved into smaller accommodation, freeing up bigger houses for bigger younger families & so on.

Graham · 14-02-2020 1:03pm

Mod Note

Off Topic posts deleted.

Electric Sheep · 14-02-2020 5:51pm

Nermal wrote: »

Cleaners and sweepers being incapable of commuting, of course.

Yes, because they are low paid and therefor cannot afford a long commute.

Of course, businesses would not want to pay a wage that would enable a commute.

mikemac2 · 14-02-2020 6:35pm

If it was a luxury apartment complex the older families of Chapelizod would still object

Serial objectors there

Spanish Eyes · 14-02-2020 7:46pm

mikemac2 wrote: »

If it was a luxury apartment complex the older families of Chapelizod would still object

Serial objectors there

Plenty of private apartments have been built there over the years. All well maintained and looking really good!

Trap a Lizard (we always called it that, or Chappo) has form for trying to preserve its cute little village, and fair dues to them. But try parking outside the shop to get a bottle of milk and you will see that it is choked with traffic. Always. At least the site on the main road is not in the middle of the village.

But to be fair, it is really a prime site, and needs to be built well and look good. And I do hope that those who get the properties in the end are working, and/ or older people from the area. Only fair really to those working in the City who have to travel for miles to get there, and cannot afford to live in Chappo.

handlemaster · 15-02-2020 1:22pm

in mulhuddart locals are stopping social nousing which is currently been builth as they themselves werent offered any of them i.e. the protesters or their families.

NIMAN · 15-02-2020 1:32pm

handlemaster wrote: »

in mulhuddart locals are stopping social nousing which is currently been builth as they themselves werent offered any of them i.e. the protesters or their families.

And it appears they are saying all them bloody foreigners are getting them!

cgcsb · 15-02-2020 1:41pm

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.

woohoo!!! · 15-02-2020 1:54pm

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.

handlemaster · 15-02-2020 4:31pm

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.

You think. Just an exaggerated claim.

Cyrus · 15-02-2020 5:10pm

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

woohoo!!! · 15-02-2020 5:36pm

Cyrus wrote: »

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

And 35 year olds?

15-02-2020 7:19pm

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.

It won’t be nurses or teachers living in social houses. Hard working tax payers like nurses or teachers are the ones who should be helped to buy in these estates not leeches getting free houses.

15-02-2020 7:24pm

Kairi Witty Hitter wrote: »

not leeches getting free houses.

Again with your disgusting attitude to people.

AulWan · 15-02-2020 7:32pm

Better in social housing paying rent, then leeching off their parents for free into their thirties.

15-02-2020 7:32pm

This was happening for a number of weeks in Mulhuddart.
Press chose not to report it until now.

Graham · 15-02-2020 7:46pm

Nod Note

nox/aulwan, the constant trolling/sniping is getting old very quickly. Please stop.

15-02-2020 8:03pm

AulWan wrote: »

Better in social housing paying rent, then leeching off their parents for free into their thirties.

Maybe in your bizarre world. Living of the tax payer is incomparable to living at home.

AulWan · 15-02-2020 8:04pm

Kairi Witty Hitter wrote: »

Maybe in your bizarre world.

I live in the real world.

Graham · 15-02-2020 8:09pm

Mod Note

knock it off.

imonboard · 16-02-2020 10:42am

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.

ExoPolitic · 16-02-2020 11:26am

Nermal wrote:

Cleaners and sweepers being incapable of commuting, of course.

If you have to pay half your wage to commute, then no. Also chapelizod is on the edge of the city anyway.

anewme · 16-02-2020 11:36am

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 · 16-02-2020 11:58am

anewme wrote: »

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.

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.

anewme · 16-02-2020 12:01pm

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.

16-02-2020 12:04pm

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.

They need places to live but not in private estates, especially expensive ones which should be exclusively for home owners paying for their homes.

Plenty of hard working people can’t afford to live in such places why should others be handed a house in these areas? Social housing should be the bottom rung of the ladder form a location perspective.

AulWan · 16-02-2020 12:18pm

anewme wrote: »

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

No learnings from previous mistakes.

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.

Graces7 · 16-02-2020 12:25pm

Kairi Witty Hitter wrote: »

They need places to live but not in private estates, especially expensive ones which should be exclusively for home owners paying for their homes.

Plenty of hard working people can’t afford to live in such places why should others be handed a house in these areas? Social housing should be the bottom rung of the ladder form a location perspective.

Maybe you would be in favour of bringing back the workhouses?

Segregation as you suggest creates ghettos. The children raised there will perpetuate the problems.

anewme · 16-02-2020 12:26pm

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.

Graces7 · 16-02-2020 12:27pm

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 said. I am a council tenant living among privately owned houses and never a problem on either side.

AulWan · 16-02-2020 12:30pm

anewme wrote: »

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.

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.

imonboard · 16-02-2020 12:32pm

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.

woohoo!!! · 16-02-2020 12:35pm

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?

imonboard · 16-02-2020 12:40pm

woohoo!!! wrote: »

Which legislation?

Its mentioned in some of the newspaper articles last year, part 8 process. All I know is it allows the council to railroad a project without any consultation. This should be unlawful. This to me is the main issue, I think it should be a national issue and the Irish people should not stand for this.

tastyt · 16-02-2020 12:43pm

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

woohoo!!! · 16-02-2020 12:44pm

imonboard wrote: »

Its mentioned in some of the newspaper articles last year, part 8 process. All I know is it allows the council to railroad a project without any consultation. This should be unlawful. This to me is the main issue, I think it should be a national issue and the Irish people should not stand for this.

Part 8 is Councils applying for planning permission and there is public consultation. Depending on what the project is, they apply to the Council (Councillors vote on proposal) or Bord Pleanala. Same third party rights.

anewme · 16-02-2020 12:51pm

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.

imonboard · 16-02-2020 12:51pm

woohoo!!! wrote: »

Part 8 is Councils applying for planning permission and there is public consultation. Depending on what the project is, they apply to the Council (Councillors vote on proposal) or Bord Pleanala. Same third party rights.

Yes, there was also mention of emergency planning route for this site in the articles. I am not sure if this was used here, but it is fair to say that this was the thinking in the dcc voters head when they voted this through.

woohoo!!! · 16-02-2020 12:56pm

imonboard wrote: »

Yes, there was also mention of emergency planning route for this site in the articles. I am not sure if this was used here, but it is fair to say that this was the thinking in the dcc voters head when they voted this through.

I recall Fingal using emergency powers for social housing in 2018 or so. Now I cannot find an article about it but maybe it's that.

imonboard · 16-02-2020 1:03pm

Although people are trying to make this black and white, I think there is alot of facets.
The council railroading the project.
The council starting the project whilst it is going to court.
The issues with the site.
The idea that there is nothing sacred anymore, a little village losing its identity. The phoenix park walls being disturbed and views from the park.

The silence from the OPW is unusual to say the least.
The 5 storey blocks blocking the church and the park.
Last but not least the social mix

AulWan · 16-02-2020 1:08pm

anewme wrote: »

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.

Did you sell to the council or a private landlord to let? Not that I personally object to that, you can sell your house to who you like, but there was a thread here recently about private owners selling their houses to the council with no consideration for the remaining neighbours. Happens a lot.

anewme wrote: »

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

Maybe wait until you've actually experienced it, before thinking you wouldn't mind? There point is, not only social housing tenants can have anti-social behaviours.

Some of the worst behaved people with the worst attitudes I've experienced are those who are the most privileged.

anewme · 16-02-2020 1:16pm

AulWan wrote: »

Did you sell to the council or a private landlord to let? Not that I personally object to that, you can sell your house to who you like, but there was a thread here recently about private owners selling their houses to the council with no consideration for the remaining neighbours. Happens a lot.

I sold my house to a fella my own age, who was going to rent to EHB at the time. He was suspicious as to why I was not keeping it and renting it myself but I'm not fit to be a landlord.

My sister sold hers to Council, no one else wanted it, as there were already Council bought houses either side (one of which was fairly obvious).

woohoo!!! · 16-02-2020 1:16pm

AulWan wrote: »

Did you sell to the council or a private landlord to let? Not that I personally object to that, you can sell your house to who you like, but there was a thread here recently about private owners selling their houses to the council with no consideration for the remaining neighbours. Happens a lot.

Maybe wait until you've actually experienced it, before thinking you wouldn't mind? There point is, not only social housing tenants can have anti-social behaviours.

Some of the worst behaved people with the worst attitudes I've experienced are those who are the most privileged.

A friend lives on an estate over the road. It has a creche at the end of it so there's flare ups over people dropping and picking up kids. Not unusual really. But what is unusual is that the one person kicking up the most has extended her campaign about anyone visiting at any time and parking on or beside the path (not blocking the road). Her campaign extends to all the 40 something houses here, not just beside her. She will ring the door bell and ask why is there a car parked there. It's like she thinks she owns the estate and hassles everyone with her shtick. She is the opposite of a social housing recipient, she'd be horrified at the idea. Just a snob who is retired with too much time on her hands.

anewme · 16-02-2020 1:19pm

woohoo!!! wrote: »

A friend lives on an estate over the road. It has a creche at the end of it so there's flare ups over people dropping and picking up kids. Not unusual really. But what is unusual is that the one person kicking up the most has extended her campaign about anyone visiting at any time and parking on or beside the path (not blocking the road). Her campaign extends to all the 40 something houses here, not just beside her. She will ring the door bell and ask why is there a car parked there. It's like she thinks she owns the estate and hassles everyone with her shtick. She is the opposite of a social housing recipient, she'd be horrified at the idea. Just a snob who is retired with too much time on her hands.

That type of person really would not bother me, maybe a bit of a headwreck. I'd just tell them to eff off. I'd rather them than anti social skangers, quad bikes, horses etc.

AulWan · 16-02-2020 1:23pm

woohoo!!! wrote: »

. It's like she thinks she owns the estate and hassles everyone with her shtick. She is the opposite of a social housing recipient, she'd be horrified at the idea. Just a snob who is retired with too much time on her hands.

Oh, I recognise the type.

These are the type of people who need to live in a one off house in the arsehole of nowhere somewhere where they are far enough from their neighbours that they can't curtain twitch or bother anyone else going about their everyday life.

AulWan · 16-02-2020 1:26pm

anewme wrote: »

That type of person really would not bother me, maybe a bit of a headwreck. I'd just tell them to eff off. I'd rather them than anti social skangers, quad bikes, horses etc.

You can't really make that judgement until you've lived it. Eff off doesn't really work with these people.

Empty_Space · 16-02-2020 4:10pm

This County is mad. Go to a shopping center when the kids are off school and see the amount of non working parents with their kids wasting the day.
Obviously not all people fall into this bracket but the problem with the current system is it encourages people to scrounge off the government. Why work hard to get a nice house when you can get the same house for free. And the real problem is that people who actually need help suffer.

No one can tell me social houses dont bring a greater chance of anti social behavior, I've seen it before. So I can completely understand people not being happy. If it was me Id seriously be considering selling up.

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

Comments

more nimbyism in Chapelizod Read Mod Note in OP