Why is this the situation with buying council housing?

foxy06

There are actually a few houses in this estate that they have refused to sell and I wont actually know until next year if I will even be able to buy this house. They do refuse to sell houses occasionally. The same way they refuse to buy back houses if the seller won't drop below market value.

Moonbeam

If the council did just rent houses to the people that needed them and when those people were in a position to buy or move out of council housing did so maybe it would be a lot cheaper for the tax payer and more people could be housed.
Everyone is entitled to have a home but not to own one.

antoinolachtnai

It wouldn't necessarily be cheaper. The government might just end up with a lot of capital tied up. They might be better to use the capital for something else.

Good luck to foxy with finding somewhere to buy!

Jo King

Am I missing something. Does no a rent of €433 a month in place of a rent of €1300 a month not mean a subsidy of about €867 a month? From who? The taxpayer! If everybody left school at 13 and started families almost straight away who would pay for all the free houses? If it wasn't for people who get themselves educated and make them selves financially secure before starting families the whole country would fall apart.

PeakOutput

Jo King wrote:

Am I missing something. Does no a rent of €433 a month in place of a rent of €1300 a month not mean a subsidy of about €867 a month?

it saves the tenant that much a month but it does not cost the council that much. The council are not paying 1300 a month for the house. they build the house and then rent it out at a rate the person can afford. the only thing it costs the council is the construction cost of the house initially(and some maintenance costs probably)

If everybody left school at 13 and started families almost straight away who would pay for all the free houses?

the eu probably but hopefully not for ignorant cnuts

If it wasn't for people who get themselves educated and make them selves financially secure before starting families the whole country would fall apart.

ehhhh who said otherwise?

foxy06

Am I missing something. Does no a rent of €433 a month in place of a rent of €1300 a month not mean a subsidy of about €867 a month? From who? The taxpayer! If everybody left school at 13 and started families almost straight away who would pay for all the free houses? If it wasn't for people who get themselves educated and make them selves financially secure before starting families the whole country would fall apart.

Who started a family at 13? I started mine at 20. Personally I am in my second year in college doing accountancy and finished secondary school with excellent leaving cert results. And please stop calling them FREE houses they are far from free! And if I was renting privately and paying 1300 a month the landlord would probably have been acting criminaly by giving the house to me in the state it was in. If I have a problem with my house the council do nothing! I pay for it myself. In my last rented place the landlord did it which justifies the difference in rent. I had central heating put in. I had a kitchen put in. Would anyone paying 1300 a month in rent agree to doing these things at their own expense? I doubt it.

By the way I AM A TAXPAYER TOO!!!!!

antoinolachtnai

PeakOutput wrote:

it saves the tenant that much a month but it does not cost the council that much. The council are not paying 1300 a month for the house. they build the house and then rent it out at a rate the person can afford. the only thing it costs the council is the construction cost of the house initially(and some maintenance costs probably)

Not really true if you accounted for it anything like a private sector company.

If the council sold the property on the open market and invested it in other things, or if they even rented it to commercial tenants, they would get a better return. You have to factor in the opportunity cost of having the money tied up like this.

Of course, the council isn't in housing to make money from it.

PeakOutput

antoinolachtnai wrote:

Of course, the council isn't in housing to make money from it.

exactly its their to serve the people in its area and provide services to them etc so the opportunity cost is irrelevant.

If there was no social housing service those houses would not have been built and it would be a private developer who would of developed the land)possibly after buying it off the council but more than likely after buying it from a private owner) and they would make a profit and the council would have gotten nothing (besides maybe the tax from the profits).

stovelid

Jo King wrote:

Am I missing something. Does no a rent of €433 a month in place of a rent of €1300 a month not mean a subsidy of about €867 a month? From who? The taxpayer! If everybody left school at 13 and started families almost straight away who would pay for all the free houses? If it wasn't for people who get themselves educated and make them selves financially secure before starting families the whole country would fall apart.

Please.

I grew up on a council estate but went to college and own a place now.

Don't bandy around idiotic getting-off-your-arse and anti-single mother cliches about getting yourself educated until you have some experience of the culture of deprivation and low educational achievement that exists in some parts of Dublin.

'The Taxpayer' is more than just you. I'm more than happy for my taxes to help people who genuinely want to break out of that cycle and help their children.

On-topic: One of the problems with selling council stock is that very little
local authority housing is currently being built to replace it.

It's funny that we have all succumbed to a collective property mania but many of us believe that some people are not entitled to want what everybody else does..

foxy06

As far as I am aware 10% (or 20% I'm not sure which) of all new developments must be allocated as social or affordable housing so the stock of council property will be increasing. The whole "council estate" idea is to be phased out and people in need of housing will be integrated with everyone else so hopefully the stigma of living in council house will be lost.

seahorse

foxy06 wrote:

The whole "council estate" idea is to be phased out and people in need of housing will be integrated with everyone else so hopefully the stigma of living in council house will be lost.

Unfortunately it wont Foxy06; it'll just morph and change but whilst keeping its target firmly in sight, as discriminatory views are wont to do. Instead of regarding those inhabiting a council estate five miles down the road a pack of low-lifes, people are now beginning to view the handful of council tenants in their development as low-lifes instead, and if anything those views are held all the more bitterly as a result of the council tenants proximity. That is evidenced by a lot of comments I've heard over the last couple of years.

I used to wonder what people were talking about when they said begrudgery was innate to the Irish nature. I dont anymore.

Cantab.

foxy06 wrote:

As far as I am aware 10% (or 20% I'm not sure which) of all new developments must be allocated as social or affordable housing so the stock of council property will be increasing. The whole "council estate" idea is to be phased out and people in need of housing will be integrated with everyone else so hopefully the stigma of living in council house will be lost.

Do you know what foxy06?

I'm glad you're getting an education, raising a family and are hopeful for the future.

But, do you know what else?

- You are NOT entitled to be given ownership a house from the government (unless you can prove that you are in hardship, in which case you ought to be given a council home, rent free)

- You are just plain silly if you go out spending loads of money on a new kitchen in a house that's not even yours: the very fact that you have done this highlights your sense of entitlement and expectation.

- What else do you want the taxpayer to do for you? You are able to study, you have a roof over your head (and your family's), you can afford to install new kitchens at a whim, and yet you're on the internet complaining about entitlement this and entitlement that.

Life's not fair. Deal with it. You've got every opportunity coming your way - work hard, and one day the world will be your oyster. You should consider yourself lucky, not hard done by.

Your attitude really pisses me off every October. It makes me wonder why I bother when Ireland is full of people like you (moaners, complainers, entitledment this, entitlement that) and the likes of Bev Flynn and Ivor Callely get off scot free. It's no wonder we have so many scougers in government when there's so many people like you in Ireland to elect them.

seahorse

Cantab. wrote:

- You are NOT entitled to be given ownership a house from the government (unless you can prove that you are in hardship, in which case you ought to be given a council home, rent free)

There is no such thing as a person being “given ownership” of a council home. Council tenants earn their ownership, just like every other mortgage payer on this island. Foxy06 (and I am assuming you are female Foxy06) mentioned several times that she has no desire to be handed a 'free home'.

It might pain you to know, as it will no doubt run perpendicular to your clear sense of class superiority, that purchasers of council homes both expect and are expected to work and pay their own mortgages, just like anybody else.

Cantab. wrote:

- You are just plain silly if you go out spending loads of money on a new kitchen in a house that's not even yours: the very fact that you have done this highlights your sense of entitlement and expectation.

The only thing it highlights to me is that Foxy06 is a hardworking mother who has the same sense of "entitlement and expectation" as anyone else; which is to make her home surrounds pleasant and enjoyable for herself and her kids, through her own hard work, I might add.

Cantab. wrote:

- What else do you want the taxpayer to do for you?

She is a taxpayer herself and has stated that several times. Clearly it doesn’t suit you to accept this, as it doesn’t fit with your stereotypical view of council estate scumbags.

Cantab. wrote:

You are able to study, you have a roof over your head (and your family's), you can afford to install new kitchens at a whim, and yet you're on the internet complaining about entitlement this and entitlement that.

Every third level student in this country is able to study as a result of free university fees, regardless of whether they are from a background of vast financial privilege and wouldn't even miss those fees; a preposterous situation which Foxy06's own taxes subsidise.

Where did you get the idea she fitted her kitchen "at a whim"? Did she say that? Or did you assume it? From everything I've read so far on this thread I get the distinct impression there was no "whim" involved and the far more likely circumstance is that she had to word hard for her new kitchen; but that wouldn't fit with your prejudicial views, of course.

Cantab. wrote:

Life's not fair. Deal with it. You've got every opportunity coming your way - work hard, and one day the world will be your oyster. You should consider yourself lucky, not hard done by.

If she had "every opportunity" for herself and her kids she wouldn’t be taking them in at 4pm so they might avoid the risk of getting killed by joyriding maniacs. Wake up and try to imagine being in the shoes of somebody less fortunate then yourself, since it's clear you never expect to have to walk in them.

As to "work hard"; she is already working hard, and has been for twelve years. Maybe you should work a little harder at reading this thread. It might (though I seriously doubt it) curtail your propensity towards making inane and insulting comments.

Cantab. wrote:

Your attitude really pisses me off every October. It makes me wonder why I bother when Ireland is full of people like you (moaners, complainers, entitledment this, entitlement that) and the likes of Bev Flynn and Ivor Callely get off scot free. It's no wonder we have so many scougers in government when there's so many people like you in Ireland to elect them.

Beverly Flynn is a typical upper-middle-class cow - stuffed to the gills with all that life has to offer, but still unsatisfied with her lot; about as far removed from a working class mother on a council estate as it is possible to imagine. In fact, when I think of Beverly Flynn and I consider the typical phrases that reflect the attitudes of the less desirable elements within her social order, they couldn't be any more perfectly coined than in the ones I've heard from you.

As to your own "internet complaining" regarding paying 600 euros for a single room, all I can say to that is - more fool you. I rent a private home in a decent area of North Dublin; it's a very large 3 bed semi with large gardens back and front and it only costs me 1000 a month. Bargains are out there for those who are prepared to get up off their moaning backsides and continue to look.

And Foxy06; I apologise for the amount of abusive comments you've had to read on this thread which I started. From one working class mother to another; we'll always have this to deal with: It's best to just realise that they come from those blessed with an ignorance of how tough the world can be - and God help them should they ever have to figure that out the hard way.

foxy06

You are just plain silly if you go out spending loads of money on a new kitchen in a house that's not even yours: the very fact that you have done this highlights your sense of entitlement and expectation.

I didn't put the kitchen in because I didn't like the colour scheme and fancied a marble worktop! I put it in because there was NO kitchen unless you consider a press with one door missing a kitchen. The room was empty with no cooker, fridge or washing machine. I bet you don't have to worry about these things when you pay YOUR rent. I got the central heating in because there was no heating. There was a fire with no back boiler to heat the rest of the house.

You are NOT entitled to be given ownership a house from the government (unless you can prove that you are in hardship, in which case you ought to be given a council home, rent free)

I'd be really annoyed too if I thought somebody was getting a FREE home but I don't have that on my concience because I will be paying for the home that I Renovated and if you are wondering how I can afford it ask the local Credit Union. They know me very well considering the amount of money I am paying to them every week. (In fact maybe this should be considered as RENT seing as it is for the house in question)

I'm beginning to feel like I am repeating myself because obviously some posters are not reading my previous posts before replying here but here are the facts for you:

I am a taxpayer
I made the house habitable
I am not entitled to get a FREE house which is why I will be getting a mortgage to pay for it.
I DO consider myself lucky and not hard done by....there are people a lot worse off than me out there and I have two lovely children, a home and a job.
And for the record my study costs ME (not the taxpayer) 1500 a year. This might sound like I am loaded but it came out of my longterm savings.

Thanks for the back up seahorse.

homeOwner

foxy06 wrote:

I am a taxpayer
I made the house habitable
I am not entitled to get a FREE house which is why I will be getting a mortgage to pay for it.
I DO consider myself lucky and not hard done by....there are people a lot worse off than me out there and I have two lovely children, a home and a job.
And for the record my study costs ME (not the taxpayer) 1500 a year. This might sound like I am loaded but it came out of my longterm savings.

You have a raw deal when compared to other people in social housing especially those housed in the last few years in estates with a mix of private and social housing and people who get new houses. But with 1500 spare cash for college plus "longterm savings" you are far better off than some people who dont qualify for social housing and are living at home because they cant afford rent. There is no doubt that as a single mother you are given advantages that other childless people in your earnings bracket are not given.

No one would choose to live in the council estate you live in with all its problems unless they literally had no choice. But you do have a choice if you have savings and money for a new kitchen and spare cash for non essentials such as internet connection. RIght there if you add it up thats quite a bit of cash at your disposal. You could chose to move and rent someone else maybe even outside Dublin in a quieter area for the same money that you pay the council now. There is no doubt that for a couple of hundred euro you could rent a place outside Dublin and live in a very nice estate. You have options far more than alot of other people that really desperately need housing and have no job and no income and perhaps an illness that prevents them from working.

I dont know your personal circumstances, but going on how you have presented them on this board, your complaining appears to be coming from a sense of entitlement as you do not appear to be someone who actually needs to be living where you are.

seahorse

First off HomeOwner; congratulations on your own circumstances, which are reflected in your username, and secondly;

homeOwner wrote:

No one would choose to live in the council estate you live in with all its problems unless they literally had no choice...

...you do not appear to be someone who actually needs to be living where you are.

do you not see the contradiction in what you have said here?


I know that some of the comments I've responded to are not directed at me, but I have found myself hard-pressed to ignore them because they also relate to some people who are close to me in my life.

My 68 year old aunt, for example, spent twenty-five years paying off her mortgage to DCC. She had to leave a very destructive marriage in the early seventies, and return from America, where she had emigrated, to come back here and face the huge stigma that existed around being a single mother.

She was uneducated, but hardworking and determined. She was granted an absolute pittance by the state and existed on that while earning the very small amount of money she was allowed to earn by taking up a part time cleaning job. Her job was the lowest paid and the least enviable; in that she spent much of that time cleaning public toilets and she did so for twenty-five years. That extra money was put by every week, regardless whether she had to do without coal or whatever other essential, in order to pay her mortgage so that she would one day have something worth leaving to her two kids, since their father clearly wasnt going to provide for their future.

Are you telling me, Cantab or anyone else who wants to query it, that my aunt, after spending a quarter of a century up to her elbows in other peoples p!ss and sh!t, doesn't have a right to call her home her own?

PeakOutput

seahorse wrote:

Are you telling me, Cantab or anyone else who wants to query it, that my aunt, after spending a quarter of a century up to her elbows in other peoples p!ss and sh!t, doesn't have a right to call her home her own?

you can make it as personal as you like the point is that in general allowing people to buy social housing government assets when they are not being replaced is a bad idea. Its great for the people who can avail of it its crap for the people who will not get a house to live in because of it. I do not begrudge your aunty the house at all in any way shape or form BUT there should be a DIFFERENT procedure in place to allow people in social housing get on the property ladder. that fact is not yours or foxys, or anyone else who is in social housing, problem individually but it is societies problem.

also you said your aunt was paying of her mortgage therefore she owned her house for all that time. its not the same thing as paying below cost rent for 25 years and then using the money saved from not having to pay standard rent to buy the house at a FURTHER reduction.

homeOwner

seahorse wrote:

First off HomeOwner; congratulations on your own circumstances, which are reflected in your username, and secondly;

Thank you.

seahorse wrote:

do you not see the contradiction in what you have said here?

Yes, thats my point. The poster's situation is a contradiction. She is acting like someone who doesnt have a choice. By her own words she fears for her childrens safety and does not let them play outside. To most people that would be a desperate situation and one they would only chose if they had no other choice. The poster has enough money to consider buying the house from the council, yet choses not to use that money to move her family away to a safer area with that money.

seahorse

PeakOutput wrote:

you can make it as personal as you like the point is that in general allowing people to buy social housing government assets when they are not being replaced is a bad idea.

There'd be no need for me to make it personal PeakOutput, it already is personal; when you're talking about the roof over a persons head that's about as personal as it gets.

Also you're suggesting above that social housing is not being replaced. The fact is that it is being replaced; it is being replaced every day of the week. Have a quick scan of any of the council websites and you'll see that for yourself. I could name you three new developments that total more than 150 social (not affordable) housing units within a couple of miles radius of where I live, (and they’re only the ones I happen to know of) and I dont live in an area that's typically high in terms of social housing density.

PeakOutput wrote:

Its great for the people who can avail of it its crap for the people who will not get a house to live in because of it. I do not begrudge your aunty the house at all in any way shape or form BUT there should be a DIFFERENT procedure in place to allow people in social housing get on the property ladder. that fact is not yours or foxys, or anyone else who is in social housing, problem individually but it is societies problem.

I do agree that for every council house sold there ought to be another one built, otherwise we'd have a situation where stocks are drying up and it doesn't take a professor in mathematics to figure out where that'd lead us. If people "don’t get a house" it's not because someone else has bought their own home; it's because the council haven’t built its replacement; that is no fault of the council home-buyer.

PeakOutput wrote:

also you said your aunt was paying of her mortgage therefore she owned her house for all that time. its not the same thing as paying below cost rent for 25 years and then using the money saved from not having to pay standard rent to buy the house at a FURTHER reduction.

No, agreed, it's not the same thing; and I'm not suggesting that people should be allowed to manipulate the system in the way that you describe. What I am saying is simply this; a person ought, and thankfully usually does, have the legal right to make their home their own property, through their own effort and expenditure.

Some people might think the likes of my aunt got a free ride and is laughing all the way to the bank; but my aunt still talks to this day, almost thirty years down the line, about how "grateful" she still feels to the Irish nation for "taking her back in and giving her a chance" as she puts it, and she elaborates about how tough the American system is and how bereft she would have been had she had no choice but to stay there.

I have to add, the "different procedures" you refer to, regardless what they may be; would, since they include disallowing a person to buy the roof over their head, involve treating council houses like transit camps for the socially dispossessed. What you are talking about is encouraging ghettoization. I think we've all seen enough of that in this country; or rather, some of us have.

seahorse

homeOwner wrote:

Yes, thats my point. The poster's situation is a contradiction. She is acting like someone who doesnt have a choice. By her own words she fears for her childrens safety and does not let them play outside. To most people that would be a desperate situation and one they would only chose if they had no other choice. The poster has enough money to consider buying the house from the council, yet choses not to use that money to move her family away to a safer area with that money.

Well I'm sure she can speak for herself on that score, but in my experience no mother willfully raises her children in a dangerous environment if she has any feasible choice. There is no force I've ever encountered so desperate and so determined as a mother who is frightened for her kids.

PeakOutput

seahorse wrote:

There'd be no need for me to make it personal PeakOutput, it already is personal; when you're talking about the roof over a persons head that's about as personal as it gets.

arguments like these, imo, should not be made from a personal perspective but from a "greater good" perspective, there will always be horror stories and extremes.

Also you're suggesting above that social housing is not being replaced. The fact is that it is being replaced; it is being replaced every day of the week. Have a quick scan of any of the council websites and you'll see that for yourself. I could name you three new developments that total more than 150 social (not affordable) housing units within a couple of miles radius of where I live, (and they’re only the ones I happen to know of) and I dont live in an area that's typically high in terms of social housing density.

as far as I know they are not being replaced at a rate of one to one but im open to correction there

that is no fault of the council home-buyer.

Thats exactly what i said

and thankfully usually does, have the legal right to make their home their own property

the only time this is the case is if the government is your landlord anyone else who rents cannot simply decide to buy the house they are in when they want

What you are talking about is encouraging ghettoization.

well actually on a very surface level I would suggest that the only thing that encourages ghettoization is individuals lack of respect

BUT

i didnt say what system id prefer. Id actually be in favour of getting rid of social housing altogether and having some form of (made up term coming) "social mortgage". where the council is giving people the money to buy a house of their choice in an area of their choice up to a point. As the persons situation improves their repayments can be increased.

Now this will allow people to build their own personal wealth without frittering money away on renting. interest(reduced) can be charged on the mortgage but one thing that would have to be done to protect people in the case of a huge property down turn is that if you die without paying the mortgage off and the value of the property is less than what is owed then you still own the percentage of the property that you have paid off the mortgage, that way there SHOULD always be money getting passed on and gradually improving the situation of the family until they are out of the poverty.

now im sure there are holes in this aswell but to me it is better than the current situation

The_Conductor

foxy06 wrote:

And for the record my study costs ME (not the taxpayer) 1500 a year. This might sound like I am loaded but it came out of my longterm savings.
.

Foxy- just a brief note to say that your course fees are tax deductable, so if you're not already doing so- it may be well worth your while to do a personal tax return.

homeOwner

seahorse wrote:

Well I'm sure she can speak for herself on that score, but in my experience no mother willfully raises her children in a dangerous environment if she has any feasible choice. There is no force I've ever encountered so desperate and so determined as a mother who is frightened for her kids.

And I would totally agree with you. That is why the poster's situation seems to me to be particularly sad. It seems to be the goal of every person in the country to buy a house and home ownership does not suit many people's situation in reality. People are mortgaged up to their eyes to the detriment of their quality of life and I only hope that this poster is not doing the same under some delusion that her family will be better off if she owns a property.

To take her situation on face value as she described it, the sane thing to do IMO is to move to a better area and use the money at her disposal to rent. Forget about buying. Its a crazy thing to do in a place where she is frightened for her childrens safety. However that goes against the grain of public opinion at the moment as it seems the message constantly being driven home to us is that home ownership is the best thing for everyone.

seahorse

PeakOutput wrote:

arguments like these, imo, should not be made from a personal perspective but from a "greater good" perspective, there will always be horror stories and extremes.

That is to ignore that horror stories and extremes are, for some communities, quite literally the norm. In the council flats I came from originally we were situated within an area that had more drug deaths within the radius of one square mile than the entire country. You're entitled to your opinion, as am I; and in my opinion a personal perspective is an informed perspective, whereas a generalised perspective is ill-informed and, as a result, an ignorant one.

PeakOutput wrote:

as far as I know they are not being replaced at a rate of one to one but im open to correction there

I dont know the figures myself; but if they are not being replaced at the rate of one to one I think we both agree they ought to be, at least as long as the current system exists.

PeakOutput wrote:

the only time this is the case is if the government is your landlord anyone else who rents cannot simply decide to buy the house they are in when they want

I know that; but should council home-buyers be denied the right they currently have to buy their homes because private renters usually don't have that same right?

PeakOutput wrote:

well actually on a very surface level I would suggest that the only thing that encourages ghettoization is individuals lack of respect

I strongly disagree with that, and without meaning to be offensive PeakedOutput, I really do feel that's an assertion that could only come from someone lucky enough to have no first-hand experience of the subject at hand. If you put hundreds or thousands of children together in an environment where they have no social amenities you will be guaranteed to generate ghettoization, as has been played out in council estate after council estate countrywide.

You will also guarantee ghettoization if you deny people the right to work towards owning the homes they live in. It is a fact that people naturally have more regard for anything they have had to persevere for, and if you take away that right you turn those homes into, as I said, transit camps for the socially dispossessed; and no good can come of that, either for the individual, the immediate community, or Irish society at large.

PeakOutput wrote:

i didnt say what system id prefer. Id actually be in favour of getting rid of social housing altogether and having some form of (made up term coming) "social mortgage". where the council is giving people the money to buy a house of their choice in an area of their choice up to a point. As the persons situation improves their repayments can be increased.

Now this will allow people to build their own personal wealth without frittering money away on renting. interest(reduced) can be charged on the mortgage but one thing that would have to be done to protect people in the case of a huge property down turn is that if you die without paying the mortgage off and the value of the property is less than what is owed then you still own the percentage of the property that you have paid off the mortgage, that way there SHOULD always be money getting passed on and gradually improving the situation of the family until they are out of the poverty.

now im sure there are holes in this aswell but to me it is better than the current situation

That is an interesting idea, and it'd certainly go some way towards improving the social conditions of a lot of people, both individually and in the wider community sense; but in the absence of a new system implementing such radical change, taking a persons right to buy their home away from them would, in my opinion, be immoral, shortsighted, and on innumerable different levels, just simply wrong.

foxy06

First of all I bought my fridge cooker and washing machine all second hand. My father put in the kitchen for me and I painted the house myself. I had some help from concerned family members with the money for the central heating and the 1500 for college fees WAS the long term savings. I didn't do the house up overnight and I have the debt to prove it! I do let the kids out but as they are 3 and 5 I stay out with them and as soon as there is any problem I bring them in.
At the moment I have no other choice but to live here but this place does have it's bonuses. For example my close neighbours are all lovely and helpful and I don't feel like an outsider here. We are all in the same boat and we all try to keep the area nice and I do have a pride in my home and the area around as do the majority of others. Like everywhere else there are a few people that drag it down but we all do our best.

Again I would like to say that first of all I am not complaining and consider myself lucky and second of all I don't think anyone is entitled to a free house but yes in my opinion I am entitled to buy my house from the council........I will be paying for it after all and I did make it liveable. Would it be fair if I was turfed out after doing all the work and the next family came in and destroyed it?

foxy06

thanks smacarrick but unfortunetly the college I'm doing it in is not allowable for some reason much to the annoyance of most of the class.

seahorse

PeakOutput wrote:

also you said your aunt was paying of her mortgage therefore she owned her house for all that time. its not the same thing as paying below cost rent for 25 years and then using the money saved from not having to pay standard rent to buy the house at a FURTHER reduction.

Another point I'd like to make on this issue PeakOutput, is this; under the current council regulations, a person is actively encouraged to wait for a decade paying a reduced rent while waiting to achieve the maximum discount possible on the property. This formed part of my original query at the beginning of this thread. I do not understand the councils logic in this.

PeakOutput

seahorse wrote:

I know that; but should council home-buyers be denied the right they currently have to buy their homes because private renters usually don't have that same right?

private renters never have and including the other reasons yes you should take away that right but only when a suitable alternative is found im not suggesting its done tomorrow

I strongly disagree with that, and without meaning to be offensive PeakedOutput, I really do feel that's an assertion that could only come from someone lucky enough to have no first-hand experience of the subject at hand.

I have never lived in a council house if that is what you mean, I have , since i was 5, lived beside a council estate and what is now a privately owned "ex" council estate (ie all the houses have been bought by the people who were renting them from the council....some have been sold on again). my estate and their estate are seperated by a minor road. There is a noticeable difference to this day in how people treat their homes and their surroundings in my estate and in the other estate even to this day although it is alot better than it was when i was younger. they have access to the exact same amenities as I had.

so what is the difference? I believe it is that they simply dont care about what they are given because it is made so easy for them and they accept their circumstances as they are and complain about them instead of improving them. now they might be the minority or it might be 50-50 i do not know and by definition the people who are bothered to post about it on a forum or work their ass off while in college are the exact people I am not talking about BUT the system makes it too easy for the people who couldnt give a **** and too hard for the people willing to work. This is what annoys the "ignorant" general population

You will also guarantee ghettoization if you deny people the right to work towards owning the homes they live in.

ireland is rare in that it has a culture of owning houses france for example has a renting culture with most not buying or wanting to buy their own house(this is according to newstalk recently I cant link to a study or anything) yet these private renters do not turn their apartment blocks or estates into ghettos as they are accountable for their actions. it appears to me that there is a lack of accountability for the scumbags in council estates. you mess up the place your out on your ear, get the next family in.


anyway we are debating from two different ideoligies I think so we are not going to agree. I do take offence to you labeling anyone who does not agree with you as ignorant but other than that there is nothing outrageous with what your suggesting its just unsustainable

foxy06

I agree peakoutput that we will never agree because we are all in very different situations. I am well aware that it is hard to get on the property ladder with or without help from a council. My situation is not as bad as a lot of others and there is people I know that wouldn't work in a fit and want everything handed to them but that will always be the way. I take serious offence though when all council tenants are tarred with the same brush because the majority of them are hard working.

Another point I would like to make is that when a house is sold to a tenent then the council don't seem to want them back. My neighbour bought hers privately because the council wouldn't buy it from the previous owners and the tenent in my house before me was moved to private apartments and he still pays his rent to the council.

PeakOutput

foxy06 wrote:

Another point I would like to make is that when a house is sold to a tenent then the council don't seem to want them back. My neighbour bought hers privately because the council wouldn't buy it from the previous owners and the tenent in my house before me was moved to private apartments and he still pays his rent to the council.

well i assume the people who want to sell them back to the council would be looking for market value so it dosnt make sense for the council to buy them back when they can just build a new one for a fraction of the cost.

dont get the reasoning behind sending someone to privaste apartments though.