more nimbyism in Chapelizod Read Mod Note in OP

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 18-02-2020 10:07pm

Kairi Witty Hitter wrote: »

Plenty didn’t even stay in school that long and didn’t need the state to house them.

I’m building my house on land my grandfather bought and he barely finished primary school.

Well, for Aul Wan’s family it was different. They worked hard but still needed assistance. Happens.

Gumbo · 18-02-2020 10:16pm

Mode note

Ok lads.
This is getting border line abusive towards people’s families, peoples generations of families and thinly veiled attempts to mock what previous generations did and may have been normal back then.

Not everybody gets free land to build a house. Not everybody gets into a social house for life and not every hard worker out there gets a mortgage from the banks because of their restrictive lending criteria.

So on that note, keep the posts civil.

Consider this post an on thread warning for all.

I will not warm any individual posters going forward. Straight to a ban. I’ll deal
with the consequences of that if it occurs.

woohoo!!! · 18-02-2020 10:17pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Well, for Aul Wan’s family it was different. They worked hard but still needed assistance. Happens.

As he said, when they pass on, the house returns to the Council to house another family in need of assistance. One less house that needs to be built or purchased.

AulWan · 18-02-2020 10:19pm

Empty_Space wrote: »

We need to fix housing problem, not insult people.

I actually laughed out loud at this, given the disgusting way tenants of social housing have been referred to on this thread, and indeed, right across this forum.

Maybe start the not insulting people, there.

18-02-2020 10:36pm

Kairi Witty Hitter wrote: »

Plenty didn’t even stay in school that long and didn’t need the state to house them.

I’m building my house on land my grandfather bought and he barely finished primary school.

So back 80 odd years ago, your grandfather worked hard, before the state even supplied much housing, then your parents lived in your grandfather land, now you will build your house in your grandfathers land.

So get off your high horse nox, you don't have anything because of what you did. You were handed yours also, maybe not by the state but by others.

Sorry mods, just read the note after posting

18-02-2020 11:11pm

bubblypop wrote: »

So back 80 odd years ago, your grandfather worked hard, before the state even supplied much housing, then your parents lived in your grandfather land, now you will build your house in your grandfathers land.

So get off your high horse nox, you don't have anything because of what you did. You were handed yours also, maybe not by the state but by others.

Well I also have worked very hard both on and off farm and will pay a lot of money to build my house etc. So I will have a lot because of what I did and nothing handed to me by tax payers.

Its laughable trying to compare anything I have talked about to tax payer funded lifestyles (not directed at anyone here btw).

18-02-2020 11:16pm

Kairi Witty Hitter wrote: »

Well I also have worked very hard both on and off farm. I have already bought additional farm land myself, will pay a lot of money to build my house etc. So I will have a lot because of what I did and nothing handed to me by tax payers.

Its laughable trying to compare anything I have talked about to tax payer funded lifestyles.

And lots of people that grew up in social housing, where their parents lived, worked hard, went to 3rd level & worked.
But they didn't get handed anything, unlike you.
So, should those people look down in you, because they worked hard than you did to buy their own (300,000 Euro) house?
And you just got handed stuff without doing anything for it?

18-02-2020 11:23pm

bubblypop wrote: »

And lots of people that grew up in social housing, where their parents lived, worked hard, went to 3rd level & worked.
But they didn't get handed anything, unlike you.
So, should those people look down in you, because they worked hard than you did to buy their own (300,000 Euro) house?
And you just got handed stuff without doing anything for it?

People you have described above are not what is being discussed. Obviously they deserve massive praise for bettering themselves.

18-02-2020 11:28pm

Kairi Witty Hitter wrote: »

People you have described above are not what is being discussed. Obviously they deserve massive praise for bettering themselves.

And maybe more so then you, who had everything handed to you.

Just remember that the family with a couple of kids in social housing or living in a private estate renting by hap, have children that they want to go on & make a good life for themselves.
So everyone wants better for their children. No-one wants their kids discriminated against by people who think they are better then them just because they have more money.

Just think a little bit nox.

19-02-2020 12:08am

bubblypop wrote: »

And maybe more so then you, who had everything handed to you.

Just remember that the family with a couple of kids in social housing or living in a private estate renting by hap, have children that they want to go on & make a good life for themselves.
So everyone wants better for their children. No-one wants their kids discriminated against by people who think they are better then them just because they have more money.

Just think a little bit nox.

They shouldn’t be having the children if they can’t afford to house themselves. How on earth do they think they can afford children if they can’t rent or buy their own home? Unless they are having the kids to help to get social housing of course....which is par for the course nowadays unfortunately.

Empty_Space · 19-02-2020 12:09am

The no handout from mammy so I deserve one from the government makes me laugh. Its a fair point.

But seriously though, you are right. If a couple working full time cant afford rent or a house it highlights there is something wrong with the Country. Something needs to be done.

But this is not the kind of person that people take issue with. Its the person who doesnt work and has no intention to or those who dont respect their neighbors. They give others a bad name and cause the kind of discrimination that shouldnt ever go towards kids. Something needs to be done about the welfare system.

19-02-2020 12:25am

Kairi Witty Hitter wrote: »

They shouldn’t be having the children if they can’t afford to house themselves. How on earth do they think they can afford children if they can’t rent or buy their own home? Unless they are having the kids to help to get social housing of course....which is par for the course nowadays unfortunately.

Well maybe a family, mother father, 2 or 3 kids, ( is that acceptable to you?)

Tipping along nicely, but then dad gets cancer....... Can't work anymore..... Has a few years were he gets treatment, might be OK, cancer comes back..... More treatment. ..........
Mam tries to work as much as she can, but dad is sick, she has kids & a sick husband to care for......

Maybe dad died......

How do we deal with these people nox?
Are there the lazy families that dont care about anything?

Ush1 · 19-02-2020 1:01am

AulWan wrote: »

My parents have been paying rent for 40 years and still are even now in their 80s.

They've more than paid for the cost of the structure of the house plus any maintenance the council has been done to it over the years, which is not as much as you might think.

When we moved in it had no heating bar an open fire in the living room and another in the kitchen. Wooden frame single glazed windows and exterior doors, concrete floors. They've poured a lot of money into making the house a home over the years, all at their own expense. They paid for the central heating, double glazing, new internal doors, skirtings, better-than-basic kitchen and bathroom. All upgrades they paid for out of their own pocket.

They are obliged as tenants to call the council if there is an issue with electrics or plumbing - I believe this is the same with private renters? And up until recently they did pay for the annual boiler servicing but the Council wrote saying that they were taking that over.

I believe the council houses nowadays are of a much higher standard, and that is as it should be. Get over your begrudgery, its just plain nasty. And it will give you wrinkles.

I didn't think tenants were allowed to make those sort of alterations to council houses?

I know in DCC if the tenant gets work done themselves and there is issues with it, it's not the council's problem and they won't be fixing it.

Graces7 · 19-02-2020 4:27am

Kairi Witty Hitter wrote: »

If they can’t afford to house themselves they shouldn’t be having kids. Absolutely no way should the tax payer be funding luxury 5 bedroom houses for social housing tenants.

Oh DEAR! This old chestnut again. Many who fall on hard times already have children ( goats have kids) . Many who fall on hard times are blameless.

A house is a house is a house.

More to real life than money.

If you treat folk like some kind of inferior being?

NB that is what taxes are for; to house needy folk.

Graces7 · 19-02-2020 4:32am

Ray Palmer wrote: »

And 3 reception room with kitchen diner, double garage and stables.

Perfect for a large family. Especially if they have fallen blamelessly on hard times. Wonderful.

Graces7 · 19-02-2020 4:38am

Empty_Space wrote: »

The no handout from mammy so I deserve one from the government makes me laugh. Its a fair point.

But seriously though, you are right. If a couple working full time cant afford rent or a house it highlights there is something wrong with the Country. Something needs to be done.

But this is not the kind of person that people take issue with. Its the person who doesnt work and has no intention to or those who dont respect their neighbors. They give others a bad name and cause the kind of discrimination that shouldnt ever go towards kids. Something needs to be done about the welfare system.

That is the fault of folk like posters here who paint everyone black. And drag good folk down.

Such as? There will always be a few who abuse a system in some way. as posters here are doing by this discrimination to those who are blameless

What can be done is you stopping this discrimination and wholesale accusing. Many like myself live in social housing, care about where we live etc and yet are consigned if you had your way to a ghetto.

dabestman1 · 19-02-2020 4:51am

If you want to live in a nice house, mabe work for it like the rest of us and don't be a leech or a sponger.

Graces7 · 19-02-2020 9:50am

dabestman1 wrote: »

If you want to live in a nice house, mabe work for it like the rest of us and don't be a leech or a sponger.

Xterminator · 19-02-2020 9:50am

dabestman1 wrote: »

If you want to live in a nice house, mabe work for it like the rest of us and don't be a leech or a sponger.

wow and i thought we didn't have the Tory party in Ireland. Well done sir! Lets tell the homeless its their own fault while we are at it /S

Gumbo · 19-02-2020 9:51am

dabestman1 wrote: »

If you want to live in a nice house, mabe work for it like the rest of us and don't be a leech or a sponger.

Mod note.

This kind of crap, beseless post are not welcome i this forum.
Who are you talkig to? Replying to?
Context to your post?

You cannot swan into a thread and throw a derogatory comment down with no context.

Please read my mod note from Post No. 253.
Poist in the tsame tone again = auto ban.

Ray Palmer · 19-02-2020 11:21am

Graces7 wrote: »

Perfect for a large family. Especially if they have fallen blamelessly on hard times. Wonderful.

Well obviously not. If they have fallen on hard times they won't be able to afford the up keep. They will never get such a house because the developers won't build them if they have to hand them over. What the rule causes is development not to happen.

The government doesn't have to give people luxury homes just house them.

What happens if the are responsible for their situation are you suggesting they shouldn't get housing from the state? Are you going to have a scale of responsibility and decide who gets the best places?

getting such a house would be akin to winning the lottery. That is not even close to goal of social housing and an incredible waste of money. They could build more properties for the same price but you would prefer one family live in luxury than house more people.

Might be your opinion but I don't think you actually thought out what it actually means. If it is I just fundamentally disagree and have explained why. Want to explain why you think it is a good idea instead of just saying you think they should get such luxury?

Empty_Space · 19-02-2020 11:31am

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Might be your opinion but I don't think you actually thought out what it actually means. If it is I just fundamentally disagree and have explained why. Want to explain why you think it is a good idea instead of just saying you think they should get such luxury?

Maybe hes holding out for that 5 bed council house with pool and sauna.

Ray Palmer · 19-02-2020 12:33pm

Empty_Space wrote: »

Maybe hes holding out for that 5 bed council house with pool and sauna.

Some people will defend others because they see it as a threat to what they have or get.

Social housing is important but not as a lifestyle choice which it is to some. Suggesting luxury housing is suitable is madness IMHO.

Cyrus · 19-02-2020 1:57pm

bubblypop wrote: »

Well maybe a family, mother father, 2 or 3 kids, ( is that acceptable to you?)

Tipping along nicely, but then dad gets cancer....... Can't work anymore..... Has a few years were he gets treatment, might be OK, cancer comes back..... More treatment. ..........
Mam tries to work as much as she can, but dad is sick, she has kids & a sick husband to care for......

Maybe dad died......

How do we deal with these people nox?
Are there the lazy families that dont care about anything?

isnt it up to all of us to make provisions as best we can for these kind of eventualities?

if i die my mortage is paid by insurance and my wife gets 4-6 times my salary from another insurance policy. i pay for them but at least i know everyone will be taken care of.

if i get a serious illness i have insurance for that.

i see it as my responsibility to provide for these scenarios as best i can.

do you disagree?

Cyrus · 19-02-2020 1:58pm

Graces7 wrote: »

A house is a house is a house.

its not though?

a 5 bedroom house in an affluent neighbourhood is not the same thing as a 3 bed council house is it?

riclad · 19-02-2020 2:09pm

Since the 90,s , 95 per cent of the tenants i know have bought the house from the council ,at a discount .
the council will sell you the house if you are working or have the money to buy it .Most of the council house, s were sold off before 2010,
the council wont sell apartments or flats because of issues like insurance and maintenance which would be complex if say 50 per cent of tenants wanted to buy ,other tenants like old pensioners would be able to afford to buy an apartment.if someone is working they should have an insurance policy and also a policy to cover the mortgage in case they fall ill or are involved in a car accident .
my friend lives in a 3 bed council house,he pays rent,
he is not allowed to buy the house because he is separated from his wife but is not divorced ,he could afford to buy the house .

19-02-2020 2:23pm

Cyrus wrote: »

isnt it up to all of us to make provisions as best we can for these kind of eventualities?

if i die my mortage is paid by insurance and my wife gets 4-6 times my salary from another insurance policy. i pay for them but at least i know everyone will be taken care of.

if i get a serious illness i have insurance for that.

i see it as my responsibility to provide for these scenarios as best i can.

do you disagree?

I'm not sure what your point is?
Is it that no-one can eve fall on hard times?
My friend was married, 3 kids under 6, when her husband up & left. Not a penny.
He didn't pay the mortgage either. Now, through no fault of her own, she found herself in arrears & dependant on the state, for a short while.
I'm not sure you can get insurance for that.....

Graces7 · 19-02-2020 2:53pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Well obviously not. If they have fallen on hard times they won't be able to afford the up keep. They will never get such a house because the developers won't build them if they have to hand them over. What the rule causes is development not to happen.

The government doesn't have to give people luxury homes just house them.

What happens if the are responsible for their situation are you suggesting they shouldn't get housing from the state? Are you going to have a scale of responsibility and decide who gets the best places?

getting such a house would be akin to winning the lottery. That is not even close to goal of social housing and an incredible waste of money. They could build more properties for the same price but you would prefer one family live in luxury than house more people.

Might be your opinion but I don't think you actually thought out what it actually means. If it is I just fundamentally disagree and have explained why. Want to explain why you think it is a good idea instead of just saying you think they should get such luxury?

If you do not see my point nothing I could say would avail.

Basically you are seeing council tenants as second class citizens with thus "rights" only to basic needs.

This is an attitude I have seen and deplored on boards for many years and always reminds me of the old workhouse mentality. NO LUXURIES FOR THEM. Regardless of what disaster has struck, what lifestyle they have been used to , suddenly they are second or third class "citizens"
Now it comes over as " them and us".

Of course I am fully aware of what it "actually means" .
Your original post on the houses was to ensure that if there were to be a mix of private ad social residents on one estate there had to be two different houses, ie stigmatise the council tenant ? Shameful . discriminatory.

Houses are there for folk to live in. If a large family needs a house, wonderful to have one with enough rooms to raise that family in the way a family should be raised. That is the criterion used already.

And neither you nor I not the state has the right to judge and assess who is to blame for their need.
You deny the basis of any welfare or responsible community .. to each according to his need, ie to you as well as others.

The state and many people are doing what is right and good and will support the next generation.
But many here seem to have no idea what a welfare state is.

What I have bolded of your post delineates the degree of prejudice we see so often.

Need to close this now; a weather crisis up here and water where water should not be. So am ending this on my part and courtesy would keep you aware of that and respecting it? Thank you

And anyways, you and I will not be side by side on this. You see money, status; I see need being met. Maybe being on the verge of homelessness not so long ago and with the probability of my car being my next home alters attitudes. My need was met by the council. At a very basic level indeed. By all means provide comforts .

Bye!

19-02-2020 3:10pm

Graces7 wrote: »

If you do not see my point nothing I could say would avail.

Basically you are seeing council tenants as second class citizens with thus "rights" only to basic needs.

I'm sorry but yes, when you are being housed by the state because you can't house yourself basic needs is all you should be entitled to. Its not supposed to be an easy comfortable life as people will just rely on the state instead of working. They should want to get out of the situation because its not a great one to be in.

The problem is that in many instances in Ireland things are too good and easy and people are not bothering to work but instead firing out kids and getting housed in nice houses, large social welfare payments etc all at the expense of hard working tax payers who would much prefer their money going on things that actually benefit them not subsidise the lives of people who have no interest in bettering themselves.

Cyrus · 19-02-2020 3:20pm

bubblypop wrote: »

I'm not sure what your point is?
Is it that no-one can eve fall on hard times?
My friend was married, 3 kids under 6, when her husband up & left. Not a penny.
He didn't pay the mortgage either. Now, through no fault of her own, she found herself in arrears & dependant on the state, for a short while.
I'm not sure you can get insurance for that.....

i never said that i responded to one strawman and you created another

but its a common tactic used by a certain cohort, find the most sympathetic fringe case you can and present that and let someone argue against it.

Cyrus · 19-02-2020 3:22pm

Graces7 wrote: »

If you do not see my point nothing I could say would avail.

Basically you are seeing council tenants as second class citizens with thus "rights" only to basic needs.

This is an attitude I have seen and deplored on boards for many years and always reminds me of the old workhouse mentality. NO LUXURIES FOR THEM. Regardless of what disaster has struck, what lifestyle they have been used to , suddenly they are second or third class "citizens"
Now it comes over as " them and us".

Of course I am fully aware of what it "actually means" .
Your original post on the houses was to ensure that if there were to be a mix of private ad social residents on one estate there had to be two different houses, ie stigmatise the council tenant ? Shameful . discriminatory.

Houses are there for folk to live in. If a large family needs a house, wonderful to have one with enough rooms to raise that family in the way a family should be raised. That is the criterion used already.

And neither you nor I not the state has the right to judge and assess who is to blame for their need.
You deny the basis of any welfare or responsible community .. to each according to his need, ie to you as well as others.

The state and many people are doing what is right and good and will support the next generation.
But many here seem to have no idea what a welfare state is.

What I have bolded of your post delineates the degree of prejudice we see so often.

Need to close this now; a weather crisis up here and water where water should not be. So am ending this on my part and courtesy would keep you aware of that and respecting it? Thank you

And anyways, you and I will not be side by side on this. You see money, status; I see need being met. Maybe being on the verge of homelessness not so long ago and with the probability of my car being my next home alters attitudes. My need was met by the council. At a very basic level indeed. By all means provide comforts .

Bye!

a need can be met without giving people luxury houses that their neighbours have paid 100s of thousands for.

Idbatterim · 19-02-2020 3:29pm

Cyrus wrote: »

a need can be met without giving people luxury houses that their neighbours have paid 100s of thousands for.

if they get social housing, strip them of any other welfare payments! let them work, they have already been given a ridiculous financial perk!

AulWan · 19-02-2020 4:03pm

This thread has gone beyond the ridiculous, now.

Hope the next recession treats you well, lads, and that life never throws you a curveball that could see you lose your job, your partner, or your health - or even your home.

I genuinely would not wish that on anyone.

Graces7, mind yourself.

Cyrus · 19-02-2020 4:09pm

AulWan wrote: »

This thread has gone beyond the ridiculous, now.

Hope the next recession treats you well, lads, and that life never throws you a curveball that could see you lose your job, your partner, or your health - or even your home.

I genuinely would not wish that on anyone.

Graces7, mind yourself.

well if you and graces7 have your way ill be entitled to a luxury house whereever i want so nothing to fear is there?

Empty_Space · 19-02-2020 4:17pm

Cyrus wrote: »

well if you and graces7 have your way ill be entitled to a luxury house whereever i want so nothing to fear is there?

The real problem with this attitude is all of a sudden the numbers applying for social housing increases and people all of a sudden cant work.

Reality is social houses need to be bottom of the rung, there needs to be serious incentive to pull oneself off the register, although I understand how hard that can be in todays world sometimes.

Graham · 19-02-2020 4:35pm

Mod Note

oh good, for a minute I was worried this was going to become just another general social welfare bashing thread. Take that debate elsewhere please.

Fair warning, if you're about to post a sweeping generalisation about social welfare, social housing, private homeowners, tenants, landlords, developers, bankers.

DON'T

19-02-2020 4:40pm

Kairi Witty Hitter wrote: »

I'm sorry but yes, when you are being housed by the state because you can't house yourself basic needs is all you should be entitled to. Its not supposed to be an easy comfortable life as people will just rely on the state instead of working. They should want to get out of the situation because its not a great one to be in.

The problem is that in many instances in Ireland things are too good and easy and people are not bothering to work but instead firing out kids and getting housed in nice houses, large social welfare payments etc all at the expense of hard working tax payers who would much prefer their money going on things that actually benefit them not subsidise the lives of people who have no interest in bettering themselves.

I don't think anyone believes that social housing should be luxury housing.
Obviously that doesn't make sense.
It should of course be liveable & comfortable, and should never be sold off either.

social housing should be just that, for people who cannot house themselves, they will never own that house, if they can buy a house, then they buy a private house.
as their needs change, they can be then moved into appropriate properties.

you really need to stop tarring everyone with the same brush. <snip>

Idbatterim · 19-02-2020 4:41pm

AulWan wrote: »

This thread has gone beyond the ridiculous, now.

Hope the next recession treats you well, lads, and that life never throws you a curveball that could see you lose your job, your partner, or your health - or even your home.

I genuinely would not wish that on anyone.

Graces7, mind yourself.

youll be thrown a far bigger curveball if you are paying ridiculous rent or mortgage and you lose your job or a big pay cut. what worry do you have in a social housing? near free rent, guaranteed income from the tax payer every week and if they are working, they can easily pay the mickey mouse rent out of JSA or JSB if made redundant or just dont bother paying, like many of them do!

Xterminator · 19-02-2020 4:41pm

The councils haven't built a house in decades. thus all the houses they have are purchased or private builds.

You cannot blame the people who need social housing for the ills of the system. Successive governments and local councils have failed to build council estates. Also international best practices is a social mix, not council estates and private estates.

https://www.focusireland.ie/fear-ghetto/

https://researchrepository.ucd.ie/rest/bitstreams/28824/retrieve

Tenure Mixing to Combat Public Housing Stigmatization: external benefits, internal challenges and contextual influences in three Dublin neighbourhoods

no-one is gamng the housing system today. The waiting list is that long that 'going homeless' doesn't result in a 5 bed house with a pool. But hey why discourage a good rant about the great unwashed.

Empty_Space · 19-02-2020 4:43pm

Out of curiosity, does anyone actually know what the rent rate would be on these Chapelizod homes, roughly?

Ray Palmer · 19-02-2020 5:25pm

Graces7 wrote: »

If you do not see my point nothing I could say would avail.

Basically you are seeing council tenants as second class citizens with thus "rights" only to basic needs.

This is an attitude I have seen and deplored on boards for many years and always reminds me of the old workhouse mentality. NO LUXURIES FOR THEM. Regardless of what disaster has struck, what lifestyle they have been used to , suddenly they are second or third class "citizens"
Now it comes over as " them and us".

Of course I am fully aware of what it "actually means" .
Your original post on the houses was to ensure that if there were to be a mix of private ad social residents on one estate there had to be two different houses, ie stigmatise the council tenant ? Shameful . discriminatory.

Houses are there for folk to live in. If a large family needs a house, wonderful to have one with enough rooms to raise that family in the way a family should be raised. That is the criterion used already.

And neither you nor I not the state has the right to judge and assess who is to blame for their need.
You deny the basis of any welfare or responsible community .. to each according to his need, ie to you as well as others.

The state and many people are doing what is right and good and will support the next generation.
But many here seem to have no idea what a welfare state is.

What I have bolded of your post delineates the degree of prejudice we see so often.

Need to close this now; a weather crisis up here and water where water should not be. So am ending this on my part and courtesy would keep you aware of that and respecting it? Thank you

And anyways, you and I will not be side by side on this. You see money, status; I see need being met. Maybe being on the verge of homelessness not so long ago and with the probability of my car being my next home alters attitudes. My need was met by the council. At a very basic level indeed. By all means provide comforts .

Bye!

You haven't made a point other than you think social welfare housing should include luxury housing. That isn't a point just your belief.

No I do not see social welfare tenants as second class citizens. Nowhere will you see me say any rights should be removed.

Believing they should not get a luxury home that most people can only dream of is nowhere near saying they can't have any luxury. We are talking about property that sold for €1 million.

Stigmatising people by giving them housing if it is different to others in the same area is a bit silly. We already know where the social housing is for huge areas. People's addresses tell us and people here have proposed building large areas of social housing which would cause the stigmatiztion to be much more obvious. To the extent people who live in private housing where there is mass social housing are assumed to be in social housing and effecting the prices of their property.

It is not and never will be discrimination to not offer a luxury house to somebody not paying for it. It would be discrimination to not allow them buy it. They can buy it if they can afford it if they can't afford it they should not get it. If it is discrimination then I am being discriminated against by not being able to afford it.

You brought up the point about those being worthy of getting social housing not me. You suggest some are more worthy than others.

You really shouldn't be telling me what I think. You can only say what you think. You are actively saying people should get luxury not just their needs met. As I have pointed out these were €1 million properties you are suggesting it would be better to house two families rather than spend €2 million to house more. That is certainly where we will never see eye to eye because to me that is madness. They can still get a 5 bed property to meet needs not a luxury property they could never afford to maintain.

Mr Tickle · 19-02-2020 5:31pm

bubblypop wrote: »

I don't think anyone believes that social housing should be luxury housing.
Obviously that doesn't make sense.
It should of course be liveable & comfortable, and should never be sold off either.

social housing should be just that, for people who cannot house themselves, they will never own that house, if they can buy a house, then they buy a private house.

I'm not sure I agree that is should NEVER be sold. Not in the near future obviously. But maybe if the social housing stocks get back to a more reasonable level and the private rental market is.....less of a post apocalyptic hellscape.

With good controls it's a system that can work. The price shouldn't undercut the private market, and the applicant would have to be a model tenant but i think it's a valuable system. What's crucial though is that the houses aren't sold at a higher rate than they are being built.

An alternative is that banks could consider rent payments (private or council) into account when determining your ability to make repayments. As I understand it, they currently only look at your saving towards the deposit. Correct?

woohoo!!! · 19-02-2020 5:50pm

<SNIP>

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 19-02-2020 6:37pm

Cyrus wrote: »

well if you and graces7 have your way ill be entitled to a luxury house whereever i want so nothing to fear is there?

I have terminal cancer. It’s news to me that I’m entitled to a luxury house to live in. When will this blessed event occur?

AulWan · 19-02-2020 7:40pm

Cyrus wrote: »

well if you and graces7 have your way ill be entitled to a luxury house whereever i want so nothing to fear is there?

If you care to read back, no, I never actually said that. I actually agree with the logic that it's money better spent to house 4 families in 4 houses each costing €250k each, then 1 family in a house valued at €1m.

What I do have an issue with, is anyone who thinks that their socio-economic group and the value of their €1m "assets" should lead to the area they live in being exempted from any other type of development - be that affordable housing, buy-to-let, social housing or private homes on a more modest scale.

Every area, every postcode, should have a mixed share of ALL of the above. Thats what integration means. Not that any one postcode should have none of a particular type of development, while another has more. Developers should not be allowed to pay there way out of this either, because it is the opposite of integration.

There are areas of Dublin in particular (and I'm sure the same could be said of Cork, Galway, or any other city) that already have a large amount of social housing / affordable / private housing to the point that they are already saturated.

It is not fair to shoe-horn more social housing into every spare scrap of land within those areas, taking up what little green space there is, because Mr 5 Beds /3 Reception rooms with stables has notions about himself and objects to any other type of development within 2k of his "asset". Frankly, **** you, Mr 5Bed for your selfishness, when there are 10,000 people without a fixed place to live that they can call home, and god knows how many others stuck in their parents' homes.

In fact, I'd argue that the levy on luxury housing that should be paid towards social housing, should be increased by and additional 10% for every half kilometer of distance you demand. If you can afford a €1m house, you can afford to be generous in giving a bit more back for the benefit of your community.

Horsebox9000 · 19-02-2020 9:45pm

AulWan wrote: »

If you care to read back, no, I never actually said that. I actually agree with the logic that it's money better spent to house 4 families in 4 houses each costing €250k each, then 1 family in a house valued at €1m.

What I do have an issue with, is anyone who thinks that their socio-economic group and the value of their €1m "assets" should lead to the area they live in being exempted from any other type of development - be that affordable housing, buy-to-let, social housing or private homes on a more modest scale.

Every area, every postcode, should have a mixed share of ALL of the above. Thats what integration means. Not that any one postcode should have none of a particular type of development, while another has more. Developers should not be allowed to pay there way out of this either, because it is the opposite of integration.

There are areas of Dublin in particular (and I'm sure the same could be said of Cork, Galway, or any other city) that already have a large amount of social housing / affordable / private housing to the point that they are already saturated.

It is not fair to shoe-horn more social housing into every spare scrap of land within those areas, taking up what little green space there is, because Mr 5 Beds /3 Reception rooms with stables has notions about himself and objects to any other type of development within 2k of his "asset". Frankly, **** you, Mr 5Bed for your selfishness, when there are 10,000 people without a fixed place to live that they can call home, and god knows how many others stuck in their parents' homes.

In fact, I'd argue that the levy on luxury housing that should be paid towards social housing, should be increased by and additional 10% for every half kilometer of distance you demand. If you can afford a €1m house, you can afford to be generous in giving a bit more back for the benefit of your community.

We get it. You hate rich people.

AulWan · 19-02-2020 10:12pm

Horsebox9000 wrote: »

We get it. You hate rich people.

Only the selfish ones.

Cyrus · 19-02-2020 10:53pm

AulWan wrote: »

If you care to read back, no, I never actually said that. I actually agree with the logic that it's money better spent to house 4 families in 4 houses each costing €250k each, then 1 family in a house valued at €1m.

What I do have an issue with, is anyone who thinks that their socio-economic group and the value of their €1m "assets" should lead to the area they live in being exempted from any other type of development - be that affordable housing, buy-to-let, social housing or private homes on a more modest scale.

Every area, every postcode, should have a mixed share of ALL of the above. Thats what integration means. Not that any one postcode should have none of a particular type of development, while another has more. Developers should not be allowed to pay there way out of this either, because it is the opposite of integration.

There are areas of Dublin in particular (and I'm sure the same could be said of Cork, Galway, or any other city) that already have a large amount of social housing / affordable / private housing to the point that they are already saturated.

It is not fair to shoe-horn more social housing into every spare scrap of land within those areas, taking up what little green space there is, because Mr 5 Beds /3 Reception rooms with stables has notions about himself and objects to any other type of development within 2k of his "asset". Frankly, **** you, Mr 5Bed for your selfishness, when there are 10,000 people without a fixed place to live that they can call home, and god knows how many others stuck in their parents' homes.

In fact, I'd argue that the levy on luxury housing that should be paid towards social housing, should be increased by and additional 10% for every half kilometer of distance you demand. If you can afford a €1m house, you can afford to be generous in giving a bit more back for the benefit of your community.

How much more would you want from them ? They already pay huge amounts of income tax and property tax on that expensive house . Probably have a massive mortgage aswell but yeah bleed them dry, that's the solution.

Let's build social houses in foxroxk and Ballsbridge.

You don't need to explain integration, I just don't see it as a good idea or one I'd support , there's a reason expensive places are expensive

AulWan · 19-02-2020 11:26pm

Cyrus wrote: »

How much more would you want from them ? They already pay huge amounts of income tax and property tax on that expensive house . Probably have a massive mortgage aswell but yeah bleed them dry, that's the solution.

Let's build social houses in foxroxk and Ballsbridge.

You don't need to explain integration, I just don't see it as a good idea or one I'd support , there's a reason expensive places are expensive

It really seems like it does need to be explained, because integration does not mean exclusion, like you seem to want.

Are you seriously suggesting that I should be feeling sorry for someone who can afford a luxury home? For real?

And yes, I see no reason not to have social housing in those areas, too. No reason at all.

Empty_Space · 19-02-2020 11:49pm

AulWan wrote: »

It really seems like it does need to be explained, because integration does not mean exclusion, like you seem to want.

Are you seriously suggesting that I should be feeling sorry for someone who can afford a luxury home? For real?

And yes, I see no reason not to have social housing in those areas, too. No reason at all.

I'll give you a reason, cost to the tax payer and budget.

There's this thing called money, it doesn't grow on trees.:)

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

Comments

more nimbyism in Chapelizod Read Mod Note in OP