Hatred within Irish Society

seamus

Originally posted by daveirl
No-one has said that people don't have a right to housing, what I've seen is people asking for equality. You shouldn't be allowed get a house cheaper than your next door neighbour just because people don't want all the low income housing in one area.

I have absolutely nothing against anyone who takes that type of housing, it's just that I don't see it any different to offering people BMWs on the cheap while other people pay the full price.

Yeah, this is pretty much it. Apart from maybe one or two posters, nobody has really said anything that makes them a nimby. It's a well-used phrase mostly incorrectly applied to anyone who rejects any kind of development in their area.

I've said it before in another thread - to improve a situation, you can't try to appeal to people's morality, or guilt them into accepting it, you have to appeal to their baser instincts, namely greed and selfishness.

Personally, I would introduce a few things:
Reinstatment of a first time buyer's grant, which can be used by anybody buying their first home. Whether the house is new or not is irrelevant. The value of the grant should be €15,000 or 5% of the value of the house, whichever is lesser.

Increase of the higher tax band to €38,000. Increase of lower taxation rate to 22% increase of higher tax rate to 43%. The average paid worker now falls into the higher tax band, yet can't afford a mortgage. Madness.

Increase the value of renter's allowance to one quarter of their yearly rent. Lower taxation on rental earnings for landlords. A lot of people are getting screwed for rent, and are stuck in a loop. They must pay rent for somewhere temporary to live, but can't afford to save for a permanent residence. Rental costs and the ability of renters to save need to be addressed.

All mortgage payers receive a tax refund equal to their average monthly mortgage repayment.

People living in state accomodation, and not earning a wage, get free rental, but no extra allowances (apart from child and the normal ones). Wage earners pay 10% of their monthly salary, adjustable based on circumstances. People living in state housing never get the option to buy at a reduced rate. They can buy at full rate or not at all (but first time buyer's grant can be applied if necessary). When the main tenant (i.e. husband and wife) dies, and there are no dependents or OAPs living in the house (regardless of whether they are dependent on the main tenant), the house gets given back to the state, and all other adult tenants are evicted after 6 months. However, they do get a higher preference if they apply to live in the house.

Frankly, if it was up to me , there would be huge sweeping reform in the whole housing market. I wouldn't go into it here. I wouldn't have even thought it all through.

Yes, and I think it's wonderful when the narrow interests of bigoted nimbys like yourself are swept aside like they should be. Up with this sort of thing!

Well, thats the thing. You see most Irish people have some form of bigotry or racism in them. We might not run out and burn that targeted segment out of their homes, but we do tend to turn away from them, or try to ignore them as much as possible.

For me its travellers. I grew up near them, went to school with them, and hell, i've shagged a few of them. Drawing from those experiences i gathered the view that i just don't like them. I'm not likely to go out and kill any, BUT i don't want any involvement with them. And this goes along with the concept that i don't want to live besides them.

The Moralistic standpoint is a wonderful thing. I really do admire you if you really believe, and practice these gospel words you're spewing, but i can't live like that. I don't really feel like lying to myself. So i don't.

shotamoose, You see, you're a wonderful person if you believe, this and you're welcome to live in those areas that separate my home from the knackers. That should fit nicely with your belief.

Just look at the USA over the last decade how many irish work and live there illegal

Thats their problem. Let them deal with it. Besides i don't really see how it matters to this thread.

shotamoose

Originally posted by klaz
The Moralistic standpoint is a wonderful thing. I really do admire you if you really believe, and practice these gospel words you're spewing...

Heh, I did wonder how long it would be before you started accusing me of 'moralising' or something similar ...

Like I said, I don't expect or demand for you to change, I just think your opinion and that of your ilk shouldn't be a deciding or even significant consideration in the distribution of social housing.

Let's be clear on what I said: I think there is a moral case for everyone to have the opportunity of a decent home, and that mixed tenure communities are a good thing.

I didn't say that everybody should love their neighbour, merely that they should not try and decide where other people should live on the basis of bigoted preconceptions.

If someone was ruining my neighbourhood I would have no qualms whatsoever about using every legitimate means to make them stop. The difference is that I would wait until they actually did something worth complaining about, whereas you would apparently decide to make life difficult for them based entirely on first impressions (or first pre-conceptions, even). Since you have admitted being a selfish bigot in this matter it hardly makes me a 'moraliser' when I agree with you.

Brerrabbit

Slightly off topic, but out of interest: what is a "Nimby"?

Never heard that word before.

Carry on...

Brerrabbit

Sorry just copped it :rolleyes:

"Not in my back yard"?

Is that it?

Once again, carry on...

bonkey

Originally posted by klaz
I'm not looking for approval from you. I pay dearly for the accomadation that i have. One of the requirements was no knackers near by.

Well, you know what the easiest, and most equitable solution in terms of everyone's rights is?

If the people you don't want happen to end up there.....you can move.

Your choice is your choice. You're entitled to it. Just don't expect society to bend itself around your wants, especially when you admit that they're bigoted.

jc

mike65

Originally posted by Redleslie

I seriously doubt it. Immigrants (especially the "coloureds") are all AIDS ridden woman hating terrorist criminals who don't want to integrate into society dontcha know.

[/b]
Racist nimby bigots do go out of their way to ruin the lives of others by stereotyping people and trying to ghettoise them.

So you're trash?


[/b]
Except for shooting your nimby mouth off and boasting about how you would make "trash" people's lives as unpleasant as possible given the chance. [/B]

Dear God Redleslie read my words not what you think I've said! I take as I find, and the truth is if there is trouble comming its from "sink estate" oiks. Not all ppl who live in such places are bad, most are trying to get by. BUT there is an element in such places that thrives on causing everyone else as much hassle as possible.

Am I trash? er no. (they live across the main road)

As for you last comment did I suggest anywhere I was a trouble making bigot who would "do for them"? If you think I am then you clearly dont know me at all. Which funnily enough you don't.

Mike.

Well, you know what the easiest, and most equitable solution in terms of everyone's rights is?

Yes, let them move in elsewhere. Perhaps where other people of their own class/type live?

Your choice is your choice. You're entitled to it. Just don't expect society to bend itself around your wants, especially when you admit that they're bigoted.

Bonkey, I'm basically admitting what most people i know think. Personally i see it as a bit of honesty. Yes, its my choice to move, which i have done, by leaving Athlone. However, if i'm settled and living in an area for ten years, i think i'm entitled to object if there's planning to bring in social undesirables into the same area as i live.

As for Society bending itself to fit my opinions, i've never expected it to.

Heh, I did wonder how long it would be before you started accusing me of 'moralising' or something similar ...

you were making clear that you didn't feel any moral compulsions on an issue which has clear ethical and moral implications

Seems to me, you were taking the moral and ethical standpoint.

Like I said, I don't expect or demand for you to change, I just think your opinion and that of your ilk shouldn't be a deciding or even significant consideration in the distribution of social housing.

I'm stating my opinion, I'm not stating anyone else's opinion. And you're more than welcome to your opinion. Its odd though, that i don't have a right to mine.

I didn't say that everybody should love their neighbour, merely that they should not try and decide where other people should live on the basis of bigoted preconceptions.

When you're looking for a place to move into, don't you look at the area and the type of people living there? You decide if its safe, whether its a place you would want your children growing up, and whether you would enjoy living there. At least i do, and i'm assuming (perhaps wrongly) that everyone else does. I don't see much difference in those decisions/judgements and objecting to a certain type of people moving in.

Let's be clear on what I said: I think there is a moral case for everyone to have the opportunity of a decent home, and that mixed
tenure communities are a good thing.

Okies. And i agree to a certain extent. I just don't agree with undesirable elements being allowed in. Hhmmm, what makes them undesirable? Judgements on areas that those same classes/social types have acted in the past. You see, I have no problems with people of different colours or nationalities. I just have problems with those classes that have a tendacy to cause trouble.

If someone was ruining my neighbourhood I would have no qualms whatsoever about using every legitimate means to make them stop.
The difference is that I would wait until they actually did something worth complaining about, whereas you would apparently decide
to make life difficult for them based entirely on first impressions (or first pre-conceptions, even). Since you have admitted being a
selfish bigot in this matter it hardly makes me a 'moraliser' when I agree with you

Ahh thats the true difference i suppose. I've seen generations of knackers act exactly the same way as those before. Whole families, who have concentrated on crime, and troublemaking.
True there are some exceptions, but i do judge by the majority. So, yes, I do have pre-conceptions and so does every person that posts here.

Selfish bigot? hmmm... I'm a bigot insofar as i don't want anything to do with them. Selfish? insofar, as I want my life to be a success and to live in the most peaceful and safe way.

Sparks

Originally posted by seamus
Imagine the situation where a young single guy works his ass off, gets a very good salary, say €40k a year, and gets himself a €200/250k mortgage to buy a decent home for himself. He's constantly working his ass off, paying upwards of €1,000 a month in mortgage repayments. Then just down the road, possibly in a slightly smaller house, some guy with no job, 4 kids and a pregnant wife, moves in, paying pittance for rent, and with the option to buy the house after the same amount of years that our poor working guy spends paying off his mortgage.
I'm all for treating everyone as equals and helping people out of poverty, but there's something horribly wrong when the guy who's wasting his life and poking his dick in everything that moves gets a better deal and less responsibilities than the guy who's trying to make something of himself, and is a net contributor to society.

Yes there is something wrong - but it's that an average, ordinary, two-bedroom house can sell for €220,000 and upwards.

Maybe I'm showing my cynicism, but when a three-bedroom semi-detached house in Blackrock sells for more than an 18th century chateau in the south of france on twenty acres of land.... well, I'm thinking that that is the problem, rather than a programme designed to ensure everyone has housing which is better than shantytowns and slums.

Yes there is something wrong - but it's that an average, ordinary, two-bedroom house can sell for €220,000 and upwards.

Sparks, from what i've read its not so much the newcomers to teh housing market thats the problem, but rather these social housing projects that are planned.

I agree totally that housing & land in Ireland costs way too much.

monument

Originally posted by mike65
BUT there is an element in such places that thrives on causing everyone else as much hassle as possible.

I know people like that, the ones people move house to get away from. However, I don’t think that "element" is restricted to the people who need cheap housing, and

Originally posted by daveirl
You shouldn't be allowed get a house cheaper than your next door neighbour just because people don't want all the low income housing in one area.

You shouldn't be allowed to stop cheaper houses closer to high class ones just because people want to keep to their own social class.

Originally posted by Sparks
Maybe I'm showing my cynicism, but when a three-bedroom semi-detached house in Blackrock sells for more than an 18th century chateau in the south of france on twenty acres of land.... well, I'm thinking that that is the problem, rather than a programme designed to ensure everyone has housing which is better than shantytowns and slums.

It's not cynicism at all; it is a fine example of grab-all-you-can Ireland, but who is going to change things?

mike65

The price of housing in the country is clearly mad... but what caused it? Mainly 2 things - 1) Years of under-investment in the nations housing stock, 2) The Celtic Tigger and er demographics/social changes.

Okay thats 3.

My mums house cost 34,000 pounds/43,000 euro in 1994. The same houses are now on the market at €190,000!

Mike.

seamus

Originally posted by mike65
My mums house cost 34,000 pounds/43,000 euro in 1994. The same houses are now on the market at €190,000!

Mike.

You can take it waay back to show what's happened. Parents bought a house in 1980 for £30,000. A neighbour moved in in 1990 and bought an identical house for £45,000. In 2000 we sold ours for £350,000. Last week another neighbour sold their house (identical except we had a conservatory) for €650,000. That's not inflation, it's madness.

shotamoose

Originally posted by klaz

Seems to me, you were taking the moral and ethical standpoint.

Maybe the point was a bit subtle, so here it is again. I think the arguments about mixed communities and the right to a decent home are clearly moral arguments - they're about rights and the type of society we want to create. Merely pointing out that someone is refusing to even engage with these arguments is not 'moralising', any more than pointing out that someone refuses to take part in a religious discussion is proselytising.

And you're more than welcome to your opinion. Its odd though, that i don't have a right to mine.

Oh you're perfectly welcome to your opinion, bigoted as it is. It just shouldn't carry any weight when it comes to deciding where social renting tenants get to live. If you had some sort of a reasonable argument to make about a particular development, that should carry some weight, but simple prejudice? No, obviously not. If we allow bigots to decide where other people get to live, why stop there? Why not let local people decide whether people of certain nationalities or ethnicities are allowed work in their town? And so forth.

I don't see much difference in those decisions/judgements and objecting to a certain type of people moving in.

You don't see much difference in you making a choice about where you get to live and you making a choice about where other people get to live? Well I'm sorry, but there's a very big difference.

I just have problems with those classes that have a tendacy to cause trouble.

And that is discrimination. When it involves such a broad range of people as social renting tenants, it is gross discrimination.

There's a basic lack of logic in some of the arguments being put forward in this thread. Basically, "Council tenants are bad because they live in bad neighbourhoods. Therefore they will be bad even if they live in good neighbourhoods". This completely ignores the rather basic idea that where people live has an influence on how they behave. Put it this way - if they cleared all the worst families out of the worst neighbourhoods in the country and made their homes available to nice, respectable people like your good self - would you want to move in? Wouldn't you turn up your nose at the oppressive grey blocks, the lack of amenities, the acres of crushing sameness? Wouldn't you worry how your kids (hypothetical situation here maybe) would turn out in such an environment, with all that poverty and unemployment about? And if you had no choice but to live there but were suddenly offered a way out into a much nicer neighbourhood, wouldn't you be angry at the people who wanted to keep you in your poverty ghetto with the rest of your kind they hate so much?

I agree totally that housing & land in Ireland costs way too much.

Then you must also agree that more and more families who in the past would have been able to afford to buy on the market must now turn to sub-maret housing or even - shock horror! - social housing if they want a home of their own? So the class of people you want to stop moving into your area is not only very large but growing to include more and more middle class families. Confused? You should be.

shotamoose

Originally posted by ixoy
Now I know X and family may not be social misfits and could be very hard working but there are clear and proven links between socio-economic backgrounds and behaviour associated with ghettos. You can try and spin it as much as possible, but we alll know it exists. I can fully understand the point being raised that mixing the backgrounds is quite possibly one of the best ways to address it but surely you can see why it's "but not in my area"?

Yes, I can see why, I just don't think that's a good reason. If we're agreed that there are at least potentially very large social benefits to mixed communities - and we're talking about breaking the link between people's poor backgrounds and their behaviour and therefore life chances - I don't see why we should let people who are (i) already doing fine and (ii) by their own admission acting out of naked self-interest, block it from happening.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

shotamoose

Originally posted by daveirl
What I want to stop is when a new estate is being built identical houses being sold at a lower price.

Is that what's happening in this case? May have missed something but I didn't see anything indicating that they were all identical units.

You don't want to go too far in the other direction either and draw enormous distinctions in quality between the market housing and the market housing, as that undermines the idea behind mixed-tenure development - that residents are not so markedly class-segregated.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

shotamoose

Well if those buying on the market don't like it they can always go elsewhere I suppose.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

shotamoose

Originally posted by daveirl
But the point is that there will be no alternative. The aim is for this to become the norm. If as some people on this thread claim, the people taking the social housing wouldn't be undesirable, then you'd never know anyway so how would you be able to decide to buy elsewhere? All that would happen is that you would have been discriminated against and you wouldn't know.

Firstly, is it really government policy that all mixed-tenure developments are to have identical units regardless of the likely tenants?

Secondly, even if this is the case and you're not explicity aware up front whether your prospective neighbours are social renters or not, I'd hardly call it discrimination. Arguably you've no particular right to know about other people's tenancies, and I'm sure that if you really want to know anyway you'd be able to find out quite easily.

bonkey

Originally posted by klaz
However, if i'm settled and living in an area for ten years, i think i'm entitled to object if there's planning to bring in social undesirables into the same area as i live.
...
As for Society bending itself to fit my opinions, i've never expected it to.

These two sentences are apparently in contradiction with each other.

Either you expect society to bend your wishes by expecting your complaint to be even considered, or you don't.

If you expect it to be listened to, then you are basically saying that social bigotry is - and should be - accepted and tolerated.

I'm just wondering if you have ever been discriminated against, and whehter or not you just took it on the chin, and accepted it on teh grounds of "Well, they have every right to be discriminatory. After all - I am".

jc

quote:

---

Originally posted by klaz
However, if i'm settled and living in an area for ten years, i think i'm entitled to object if there's planning to bring in social undesirables into the same area as i live.
...
As for Society bending itself to fit my opinions, i've never expected it to.

---

Either you expect society to bend your wishes by expecting your complaint to be even considered, or you don't.

No. I can voice my complaint, and hope that society (or the body that i'm appealing to) listens. I don't expect that everything i ask for is granted. I'm not that foolish.

If you expect it to be listened to, then you are basically saying that social bigotry is - and should be - accepted and tolerated.

No. I'm saying that every person has the right to object to something, regardless of their politics or social opinion. I object to having knackers living beside me. Thats my choice to object. Again i'm not expecting any body to listen, but i do expect to reserve that right to object. Its called freedom. Just because my opinion isn't the socially acceptable norm, doesn't exclude me from that right.

I'm just wondering if you have ever been discriminated against, and whehter or not you just took it on the chin, and accepted it on teh grounds of "Well, they have every right to be discriminatory. After all - I am".

Actually i have. You see i have these hereditary shakes. This excludes me from certain jobs. Thats not discriminatory, however i have been denied jobs in other areas, where my shakes wouldn't have any bearing. That was discriminatory. And i objected, and got those jobs.

Their choice is to be discriminatory. Just as its my choice to object. If i'm discriminatory towards someone for any reason, despite my views abt them, they have the right to object to that. My feelings towards them does not change that right. It never did.

Merely pointing out that someone is refusing to even engage with these arguments is not 'moralising', any more than pointing out that someone refuses to take part in a religious discussion is proselytising.

I'm not refusing to argue abt this. You may have noticed that i'm still here.

It just shouldn't carry any weight when it comes to deciding where social renting tenants get to live.

Thats where you're wrong. You see, if the majority felt the same way, then it would be decided by my outlook. The only reason you can take the moral highground, is because the majority follow that viewpoint.

If you had some sort of a reasonable argument to make about a particular development, that should carry some weight, but simple prejudice? No, obviously not.

Why not? you see, if i have flats to rent, i can choose who moves into them. I don't have to accept anyone that shows up. I can decide to rent the places to them. Its not discrimination. Actually it could be, but i don't really care. Its my choice.

Just the same, i feel that i have the right to object to having knackers live beside me. Just as its your right to object to my opinions.

If we allow bigots to decide where other people get to live, why stop there? Why not let local people decide whether people of certain nationalities or ethnicities are allowed work in their town? And so forth.

Lol. ok. Let them. You're preaching to one that believes this. I'm not saying its socially acceptable. I never did. I just believe that we have the right to choose where we live, and who lives nearby if it has direct influence over our lives.

You don't see much difference in you making a choice about where you get to live and you making a choice about where other people get to live? Well I'm sorry, but there's a very big difference.

Very well. Theres a difference in your opinion. In mine theres not. Look at the example that i made in regards to that quote. It has some bearing on this.

And that is discrimination. When it involves such a broad range of people as social renting tenants, it is gross discrimination.

I have a problem with rapists. Does that mean i'm for gross discrimination? if yes, then i agree totally.

Then you must also agree that more and more families who in the past would have been able to afford to buy on the market must now turn to sub-maret housing or even - shock horror! - social housing if they want a home of their own? So the class of people you want to stop moving into your area is not only very large but growing to include more and more middle class families. Confused? You should be

Read what i have written. I have no problem with some social housing. I'm a narrow bigot. I don't like troublemakers, and knackers. So exclude the knackers and those people with known troublesome records, and i'm all for social housing. I discriminate, just not quite as broadly as you believe.

Sparks

Originally posted by klaz
Sparks. Read what i have written. I have no problem with some social housing. I'm a narrow bigot. I don't like troublemakers, and knackers. So exclude the knackers and those people with known troublesome records, and i'm all for social housing. I discriminate, just not quite as broadly as you believe.

Ironically, you're replying there to the wrong person. Perhaps more careful reading in future?

heh. Sry abt that. Just so used to posting to your comments i guess.

shotamoose

Originally posted by klaz
I'm not refusing to argue abt this. You may have noticed that i'm still here.

What I said was that you refuse to engage with the moral aspects of the housing argument, instead seeing it as something that's entirely about your own self-interest. I don't see why you're contesting this, apart from the possibility that being a self-confessed selfish bigot makes you uncomfortable on some level.

Thats where you're wrong. You see, if the majority felt the same way, then it would be decided by my outlook. The only reason you can take the moral highground, is because the majority follow that viewpoint.

Eh? First you said that you're only saying what most people think. Now, I'm only right because most people agree? Which is it?

You're just avoiding the actual point again, by going on about me being on the 'moral high ground' or you fighting the good fight against an unreasonable world.

The point is, what you want is to be able to discriminate against other people on the basis not of their individual actions but on their class backgrounds. I know that's discrimination, even you seem to know it's discrimination, but when I say "that's discrimination" you get all uncomfortable and feel the need to call me a moraliser.

Why not? you see, if i have flats to rent, i can choose who moves into them. I don't have to accept anyone that shows up. I can decide to rent the places to them. Its not discrimination. Actually it could be, but i don't really care. Its my choice.

There's a well thought-out argument :rolleyes: . As you admit, yes it is discrimination. And it's against the law, thankfully.

Just the same, i feel that i have the right to object to having knackers live beside me. Just as its your right to object to my opinions.

Like I've said, object all you like, but do not expect anyone to listen, because they would be wrong to and may be breaking the law.

I'm not saying its socially acceptable. I never did. I just believe that we have the right to choose where we live, and who lives nearby if it has direct influence over our lives.

So let's recap. It's bigoted, it's discriminatory, it's socially unacceptable and it's probably against the law. Could you not say that asking to be let decide where other people live on this basis is simply 'wrong', and that you shouldn't be allowed do it? That's what I've been arguing, and every other thing you say just strengthens the case.

I have a problem with rapists. Does that mean i'm for gross discrimination? if yes, then i agree totally.

I've read this several times and I still don't know what you're on about. If you had something against all social tenants because you once new one of them who was a rapist, then ... yes, that would be gross discrimination, and even a small child would realise that it was indefensible.

Read what i have written. I have no problem with some social housing. I'm a narrow bigot. I don't like troublemakers, and knackers. So exclude the knackers and those people with known troublesome records, and i'm all for social housing. I discriminate, just not quite as broadly as you believe.

I've read what you've written. Here's some highlights:

tenants of social housing tend to be troublemalers

If these areas had social housing, the safety of that area for children and adults alike would probably drop.

You're quite clearly failing to distinguish, or not even trying to distinguish, between one group of social housing tenants and another.

In practise, it would in most cases be impossible for you to decide beforehand which social tenants were 'troublemakers' and which weren't, so you would have to end up discriminating against them all. You obviously found this perfectly acceptable at the beginning of the thread, so backtracking now just exposes your position as inconsistent as well as bigoted, discriminatory etc etc ...

gurramok

So let's recap. It's bigoted, it's discriminatory, it's socially unacceptable and it's probably against the law

Quite right, every right thinking person would agree.

County Manager brands some local objections as 'racist' here

A meeting about the scheme after Mass last Sunday was advertised in the parish newsletter and attracted 300 people.

"Some Christianity," Mr Soffe said

Shows the hyprocisy of some christians who would turn away people in need of a habitat.

Fair play to the county manager for countering the nazi type attempts by some to discriminate against their fellow citizens who numbered 500 people on the housing list who desperately need somewhere to live

dglancy

It's an emotive issue isn't it?

Lets fast-forward ten years. Lets say that the affordable housing/social housing scheme has been a roaring success. Lets say that the vast majority of people were neighbors to people living in such housing. Lets say that they were perfectly fine and polite people.

The thing is, they earn lots less then you and many of them don't have a solid job. It bothers them - but it's not about to change anytime soon.

Their lifestyle is very similar to yours but they are effectively living tax free, stress free and with a free-ish house. Isn't that going to have you questioning why you bother at all, when you come home from a stressful days work? What message will it send out to younger people - remember 20% of their friends live in these houses.

"My son, go do your homework or you won't get a good job and end up buying this house for a fraction that you'll have to pay for it if you don't!"

OK, my argument isn't perfect but I do worry about it.

Damo

Sand

I dont know whats so surprising about this. People believe they achieve at school, go to college and earn a degree, get a job and work hard to earn a promotion, save and deny themselves luxury after luxury to try and get a deposit together and try to persuade the bank to give them a loan that will cripple their spending for many many years to come so they can buy a nice house in a nice area with trouble free neighbours.

They didnt volunteer to be part of some worthy social engineering experiment. The sheer injustice of seeing Anto, Sharon and their 9 kids moving in next door without any of the sacrifices or effort made on their part (Oh alright, Sharon gave birth 9 times, and Anto works the odd nixer in between collecting his dole ) - if anything the "nazis" are paying for their house as well as their own, just to rub it in - is meant to be what? A heart warming sight for them? Are they supposed to be glad? Oh hurrah, I kill myself to get this house and the person next door gets it for practically free - But its not free, cos Im paying for it too. Double hurrah.

And thats assuming that Anto and Sharon are actually great neighbours - the anger over the injustice of it all is still wholly valid. Assuming theyre not great neighbours then it just gets better and better. And yes, council housing does reduce the value of any nearby homes - not because council housing is full of knackers but simply why pay top dollar to have an address in some area when there is practically free social housing right beside it?

If council housing is to occur in such a fashion ( especially the haphazard fashion that seems to be occuring in the referenced case ) then the government needs to compensate the local property owners fully for any loss in the valuation of their home. And certainly they need to compensate the property owners the difference between the price they paid for their home and the price the council housing recepients are paying. Fair is fair afterall. And it would remove a cause for a lot of tension and objections to council housing.

Hobbes

In the US where I lived (MA) they had a good system.

Any developer who built an apartment block or housing estate had to give 10% of houses over to the government for affordable housing.

They should do that here.