Why is this the situation with buying council housing?

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.

foxy06

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

Very nice apartments too but he was waiting 12 years to get transfered (he was living alone). I said this earlier though, the council are getting 10 % of all new developments and this is why I believe council estates will soon be a thing of the past.

PeakOutput

foxy06 wrote:

Very nice apartments too but he was waiting 12 years to get transfered (he was living alone). I said this earlier though, the council are getting 10 % of all new developments and this is why I believe council estates will soon be a thing of the past.

i thought you meant the council were paying rent to a private landlord and the tenant was paying rent to the council nvm i understand now

Cantab.

seahorse wrote:

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'.

Council tenants are getting a huge discount on their home. If they can't afford to buy their own home at full market rates, tough. Why should the taxpayer contribute to their personal wealth? If you want personal weath, you should earn it: not be given a discounted asset courtesy of the taxpayer. I believe that council houses should be given rent-free (or at discounted rent, depending on their circumstances) to those in need. Renting is a very different thing to ownership.

seahorse wrote:

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.

You're running away with yourself now seahorse. The class system was abolished in Ireland you know. (Ironically, there's people like you around to reinforce the concept of 'class superiority' which you despise so much)

seahorse wrote:

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.

Where does her sense of entitlement end? It's your right, by virtue of your humanity, to have shelter, food, warmth and safety. It's not your right to have an asset worth several hundred thousand €, part of which was given to you by the taxpayer.

I'm sure we can agree that it's not an 'entitlement' to own a flat-screen TV? Why? Because a flat-screen TV is not a necessity. Can we also agree that it is your entitlement to have a roof over your head? Why? Because it is a necessary function of a civilised human capable of participating in society. How anyone can say that providing a valuable asset (or discounted asset) to a private individual is a 'necessity' is beyond me. Ownership is not a necessity. Ownership is a privilige. The taxpayer does not need to subsidise ownership. Why should they? It's not a necessity.

seahorse wrote:

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.

I'm sure she is. Sure every time she buys a Mars bar, she's a taxpayer. Aren't we all? (well, most of us anyway). This 'I'm a taxpayer too' mantra is a typical form of self-justification for scrounging off the state. Yes, I'm saying foxy06's sense of entitlement is a scroungy attitude. It's quite a common mindset in social welfare fraudsters and tax evaders too.

seahorse wrote:

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.

We're waning off point here. I agree 3rd level in Ireland is a joke - universities are full of life-style students (i.e. middle-class parasites who want to study Orts at UCD or B€$$ at Trinity for the good-time experience). Academic integrity in Ireland is gone to the pits - just look at grade inflation for example. It's time we brought back fees and made people value their education (in conjunction with appropriate education access programs of course). Perhaps we can debate this on another thread?

seahorse wrote:

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.

She can't be that poor if she can afford to install a new kitchen. You're the one throwing around words like 'prejucdicial', 'class superiorty', 'insulting' and 'abusive'.

seahorse wrote:

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.

That's all very terrible. It's not her fault that council housing estates have become ghettoised. It's a failure of government housing policy - if council housing was spread out properly, perhaps we might not have so many social problems. It's a grand idea in theory, but the reality is: life's not fair, some are born more equal than others and we all have to look out for number one. The best way of looking out for number one is by changing your attitude/mentality, going out there and doing something for yourself, instead of constantly looking to government to do something for you. The sooner foxy06 realises this, the better. One day she might even be an accountant earning in excess of €100k. Wouldn't that be something?

seahorse wrote:

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.

I'm sure she is. We all 'work hard' (some work harder than others, and always will). I work hard. She works hard. I'm sure you work hard. Life goes on.

seahorse wrote:

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.

What phrases might they be now?

seahorse wrote:

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.

Fool? I pay market rate and get on with it. I'm happy enough where I live thank you. As I'm sure you are in your house. I'm saving a fortune by not having to pay a mortgage in a market where property prices are falling. I'm playing my hand, living life and making use of the present. I'm not waiting around for some greater power (i.e. 'the government') to one day come to my rescue.

seahorse wrote:

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.

So you identify yourself as 'working class'? I suppose your 'proud' of this fact too? I despise the whole notion of class (both snobbery and inverse snobbery rooted in an inferiority complex). The class system has evolved - social stratification continues and is more complex than ever. It's never going to go away - especially when there are people who look down upon those less fortunate than themselves and when there are people who are 'proud' to be working class. Working class pride is the kind of thing that prevents a young man going to Trinity College - his 'working class' mates down in the pub would slag him off for being 'posh'. I've seen this happen - a young man was socially isolated for attending the wrong university.
All we can do as a society is put social mobility mechanisms in place for people to avail of. But if people (like foxy06) can't avail of what they've got already, the whole social engineering project is just a waste of time, money and effort.

PeakOutput

cantab there is alot of sense with what you write but there is just as much crap as well

seahorse

PeakOutput wrote:

private renters never have...

That's not true. It's an unusual occurance, but it happens. I know of a woman who bought the bungalow she'd been renting for a few years from the landlady. It wont often happen in the case of an investor/tenant scenario, but it is not unheard of, as you suggest.

PeakOutput wrote:

yes you should take away that right but only when a suitable alternative is found im not suggesting its done tomorrow

Well there are those who would suggest it was done tomorrow PeakOutput, and with no back-up plan behind it; now that you've clarified you're not in that camp of thought we don't have anything left to debate on that particular matter because I feel an idea like the one you proposed in your second last post to me would actually be of better long-term value than the one we currently have in place.

PeakOutput wrote:

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.

Those estates were separated by a lot more than a road PeakOutput; the true division was not visible and there was nothing minor about it. You would have been too young to understand that at five years old but for Gods sake you're a young adult now, so you ought to be nearer able to form a working comprehension of what those differences were at this stage.

Personally I didn't have the luxury of living in a council estate that was situated in an affluent area, so I can only discuss this from the perspective of somebody housed in the city center by what was Dublin Corporation at that time. I'll give you a bit of my take on the invisible differences that separate the social classes in this and all capitalist countries:

The offspring of better-off families, just like working class ones, inherit their social status and part of their particular package includes a belief system of incalculable value that teaches them from the age they are first capable of comprehending it that they have real and achievable prospects in life; that's not quite so likely a certainty to form independently in the mind of a child who needs to sidestep syringes on their way out to school every morning, and has never witnessed, nor even imagined witnessing, the authority figures in his immediate and extended family succeed in the capitalist structure of our society, and lives in a sphere of reality whereby the only people he has ever observed in a position of social seniority are the drug dealers in his own neighbourhood.

Along with the expectation of success, upper middle class children are steered and guided in the direction of an advantageous future, and much financial resource is channeled into ensuring the undertaking will result in a successful outcome. I think it is needless to say these hugely beneficial factors are entirely lacking in the upbringing of the disadvantaged working class child.

Capitalism itself punishes the poor for their own financial frailty. If I get into discussing how this presents itself in the lives of the working classes we’ll be here all day, but you can be assured that it operates in such a manner as to keep social mobility out of reach for the majority of citizens who are numbered amongst the working class poor.

PeakOutput wrote:

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

I'd be the first one to agree with you on the point of this governments making it FAR too easy for people who expect to be provided for by the hard work of others. Mary Harney, for all her faults, tried to do something about this a few years back and was, unfortunately, shouted down on the issue. It's a pity she didn't take a stronger stand and threaten to resign from government if her proposals were not implemented; in fact, I'm certain had she made that threat and followed through with it she'd have gained herself massive support as an independent.

PeakOutput wrote:

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.

It'd be lovely for the people who live there if the council managed their properties in that way, but unfortunately they don't; the apparent attitude being that if you are a council tenant to begin with you can content yourself with living alongside anti-social behaviour of the most extreme sort it is possible to endure.

Tell me; if you were living in an privately owned apartment block let by the same investor and there was a particular family dealing drugs out of that building and generally making life hell for the neighbours there, how long do you think it'd take before that person was evicted? And how would you feel if that person was NEVER evicted, and you were left with the choice of either leaving your home or putting up with that behaviour?

Naturally I'd imagine you would leave, and I'd also imagine you'd feel pretty disgruntled about having to do so. Council tenants, a lot of whom are in the worst sort of financial straits and have taken as much as they can bear of neighbours like these do not have that choice; they must either live alongside this or make themselves homeless, as it is not possible to be rehoused by any council in the land if you willfully walk out of accommodation in any one of them.

As to your problems with my use of the word "ignorance"; you take offence to that because you are confusing ignorance with stupidity; ignorance simply means to be lacking in awareness and can and often does exist without the presence of stupidity. For instance, I am entirely ignorant of what it is to exist in the sphere of reality that has been expressed in many of the posts on this thread, and don't regard myself in any way stupid as a consequence.

seahorse

PeakOutput wrote:

cantab there is alot of sense with what you write but there is just as much crap as well

There is a far higher ratio of crap in my opinion PeakOutput; so much so that I don't have the time to respond to it all today.

Good evening folks; it'll be interesting to see where this conversation has lead sometime tomorrow.:)

foxy06

Have to agree there he talks a lot of crap but the biggest load of crap I've heard on this thread is the fact that he thinks there is no such thing as "class" anymore yet I'm a taxpayer only because I buy the occasional mars bar! I must admit this thread has wound me up no end but that contradiction is hilarious. He obviously has preconcieved ideas about me and most council tenents and is to lazy to read the previous posts. Anyway that fella has got enough of my attention and so has this thread. I wont be posting again as I have been really dragged in by it and all I seem to be doing is repeating myself.
Thanks for support anyone who has offered it. Sorry to all you taxpayers for robbing you blind. (even though someone said earlier that the houses are built really cheaply and when this house is sold on it will have been at a huge profit to the council in spite of the 3-30% discount given and all the rent that was paid up til then (5200-52000 euro depending on the length living there) ).
Have to get up early for work i'm afraid I have a mortgage to save up for and a credit union to pay!! But I suppose you will have to too Cantab by the look of this thread you started last year.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054952935&referrerid=&highlight=

looks like i'm not the only person who is thinking of robbing the taxpayer.

PeakOutput

foxy06 wrote:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054952935&referrerid=&highlight=

that thread answers alot of questions about the type of person he is cheers foxy I can safely ignore his opinion in future

A Random Walk

seahorse wrote:

There is a far higher ratio of crap in my opinion PeakOutput; so much so that I don't have the time to respond to it all today.

Can I say as a neutral observing this thread I've been much more convinced by Cantab's arguments which have been consistently polite & fact based, rather than the emotional and abusive responses that he (I presume) is receiving in response.

SkepticOne

Getting back to the original question:

seahorse wrote:

What I’m wondering is, why don’t the councils allow their tenants to purchase their homes with the 30% discount from the off rather than having them wait ten years? It’s a far smaller reduction than is the case in a lot of houses sold under the affordable housing schemes, and if a person is granted a council house to begin with of course they’re not in the financial position to buy on the open market.

This effectively makes it like the "affordable housing" initiative/shemes. The state or council obtains housing and sells it at a discount to market value to selected individuals.

I have the same problem with this as I have with AH.

The people that benefit from the discount are not the worst off. The most disadvantaged would not qualify for a loan and so would be excluded from the programme. Yet those who are worse off still get to contribute in taxes so that those on better incomes can get their discount which, imo, is unfair.

PeakOutput

A Random Walk wrote:

Can I say as a neutral observing this thread I've been much more convinced by Cantab's arguments which have been consistently polite & fact based, rather than the emotional and abusive responses that he (I presume) is receiving in response.

I have not seen any abusive responces to anyone not to mind him

stovelid

Cantab. wrote:

If they can't afford to buy their own home at full market rates, tough.
Why should the taxpayer contribute to their personal wealth?

foxy06 wrote:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054952935&referrerid=&highlight=

looks like i'm not the only person who is thinking of robbing the taxpayer.

Until I saw this, I was about to point out that, by the same token, you should also oppose affordable housing (or even grants, tax breaks etc) too.

The only "shame" you feel should be your own hypocrisy.

It sounds like it's OK for middle-class professionals to expect tax breaks and allowances but that for other members of society, the same old punitive, sh*t applies. Your problem is obviously with the fact that it's a council estate. I'm sure I'm correct in assuming that 90% of the people on here whining about handouts would never countenance buying a house in a rough council estate anyway.

Lets face it, a lot of the bad feeling is because people want to own a house and when they see others being helped to buy houses (that they wouldn't touch anyway), they complain.

Proponents of meritocracy like yourself, the advocates of making your own wealth, never seem to apply the judgment to themselves. Unless you are making a fortune (you are obviously not if you are applying for affordable housing) and not seeking an ounce of help; you are a 'failure' and unworthy of help by your own yardstick.

Also again: please stop bandying around the term taxpayer as if it is an extension of your views. You are not the only taxpayer in the country. Myself and many others would disagree with your views on how tax is spent.

Cantab. wrote:

The class system was abolished in Ireland you know.

I despise the whole notion of class (both snobbery and inverse snobbery rooted in an inferiority complex)

Gainsaying the idea of class is a luxury enjoyed only by those whose experience of class is positive.

Cantab. wrote:

Working class pride is the kind of thing that prevents a young man going to Trinity College - his 'working class' mates down in the pub would slag him off for being 'posh'.

I was brought up in well known 'rough' council estate and went to Trinity. I find it interesting that you turn around the culture of low educational achievement, poverty and low confidence as somehow being self-inflicted. With all due respect, 'working class pride' my hole.

Cantab. wrote:

I've seen this happen - a young man was socially isolated for attending the wrong university.

Sounds like a Ross Carrol O Kelly plot. Mackers gets slagged for going to a IT instead of Trinners.

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.

This is probably the cruelest thing you have said. The OP has said she is a long term renter with children. She's not crammed into a rack-rented hovel with ten students in Rathmines. Why shouldn't she try and improve the house for herself and her children?

seahorse

foxy06 wrote:

Have to agree there he talks a lot of crap but the biggest load of crap I've heard on this thread is the fact that he thinks there is no such thing as "class" anymore yet I'm a taxpayer only because I buy the occasional mars bar! I must admit this thread has wound me up no end but that contradiction is hilarious. He obviously has preconcieved ideas about me and most council tenents and is to lazy to read the previous posts. Anyway that fella has got enough of my attention and so has this thread. I wont be posting again as I have been really dragged in by it and all I seem to be doing is repeating myself.
Thanks for support anyone who has offered it. Sorry to all you taxpayers for robbing you blind. (even though someone said earlier that the houses are built really cheaply and when this house is sold on it will have been at a huge profit to the council in spite of the 3-30% discount given and all the rent that was paid up til then (5200-52000 euro depending on the length living there) ).
Have to get up early for work i'm afraid I have a mortgage to save up for and a credit union to pay!! But I suppose you will have to too Cantab by the look of this thread you started last year.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054952935&referrerid=&highlight=

looks like i'm not the only person who is thinking of robbing the taxpayer.

Wow Foxy, thank you for saving me the time of responding to Cantab. I read through that thread and as one poster near the end pointed out, it stinks of snobbery; in fact it stank so bad I quickly realised here is somebody it's really not worth expending the effort to communicate with. As you aptly point out yourself, the notion that class does not exist is ridiculous. Hierarchical class structures will continue to persist in any capitalist society, since one exists as a result of the other, and it would take someone who'd had the privilege of living a life unscathed by this truism to make the inane denial of the existence of social class. Cantab explains himself where his problem with AH comes from - he applied for one and it wasnt cheap enough for his liking!

& PeakOutput; I hope you're not still offended by my use of the word 'ignorance', and I hope you realise that I was in fact being entirely genuine when I said that it was not meant to be received in the sense that it often is thesedays, with it's negative and inaccurate connotations with stupidity.

I think, like Foxy, I've also had enough of this thread; I've too much to be getting on with to be elsewhere.

gamer

the health board has very strict standards as regards space ,heating,storageetc as re single mothers with kids, they may be abit flexible ,if she finds a house ,wants to be close to schools ,in a QUIET area.i KNOW single mothers with 1kid living in beautiful 3bed houses ,90percent of the rent is paid by welfare officer.I doubt very much if shes, living in a RACK rent situation.

Cantab.

foxy06 wrote:

Have to agree there he talks a lot of crap but the biggest load of crap I've heard on this thread is the fact that he thinks there is no such thing as "class" anymore yet I'm a taxpayer only because I buy the occasional mars bar! I must admit this thread has wound me up no end but that contradiction is hilarious. He obviously has preconcieved ideas about me and most council tenents and is to lazy to read the previous posts. Anyway that fella has got enough of my attention and so has this thread. I wont be posting again as I have been really dragged in by it and all I seem to be doing is repeating myself.
Thanks for support anyone who has offered it. Sorry to all you taxpayers for robbing you blind. (even though someone said earlier that the houses are built really cheaply and when this house is sold on it will have been at a huge profit to the council in spite of the 3-30% discount given and all the rent that was paid up til then (5200-52000 euro depending on the length living there) ).
Have to get up early for work i'm afraid I have a mortgage to save up for and a credit union to pay!!

The poor thing. She has to get up and work in the morning. You should be thankful that you have a job (in your case, that 'the government' has provided you with a job) and are able to get credit.

Foxy06: you are obviously entitled to shelter in a council home given your circumstances. What pisses me off about you is that you expect to be given an asset worth hundreds of thousands of euro courtesy of the taxpayer. Why don't you just stick to your accountancy degree and try and make life better for yourself? My hunch is that it's far easier to resign yourself to a life of hand-outs and government dependency. If you were a man, I'd tell you to cop yourself on and grow some balls. You feel you've got a raw deal out of life, when in fact you should count yourself lucky.

foxy06 wrote:

But I suppose you will have to too Cantab by the look of this thread you started last year.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054952935&referrerid=&highlight=

looks like i'm not the only person who is thinking of robbing the taxpayer.

I don't know what you're talking about 'robbing the taxpayer'. I don't see how affordable housing is such a good thing. If you actually read the post you will see that I believe affordable housing a complete scam and a waste of taxpayers' money.

I wouldn't live in an affordable home if I was paid. That's the god honest truth. You said yourself in relation to your council home that:

foxy06 wrote:

Just today I had to grab my children and bring them inside because one of the locals thought 4 in the afternoon was a nice time to go Joyriding.

I certainly wouldn't subject my children to that kind of carry-on. Northern Cross is certainly not Beverly Hills 90210. If I had to live in a council home like you, I wouldn't have a choice, and like you, I'd just get on with it. But I am in the fortunate position where I DO have a choice. My choice is no way hose. I wouldn't live in any affordable home if I was paid. My choice is to leave this wonderful little isle, in 26 days' time. Thanks for the ride, it was good while it lasted. I'll leave you in peace Foxy06 and you can all sort out the great mess that is Irish property! Oh wait, but you don't have to worry about all that cos the 'government' is always there to provide for you.

Foxy06, it's time you snapped out of it.

Cantab.

seahorse wrote:

Wow Foxy, thank you for saving me the time of responding to Cantab. I read through that thread and as one poster near the end pointed out, it stinks of snobbery; in fact it stank so bad I quickly realised here is somebody it's really not worth expending the effort to communicate with.

Ah yes, when all else fails, get out the branding iron (in this case, it's 'snobbery', The last bastion of the weak).

seahorse wrote:

As you aptly point out yourself, the notion that class does not exist is ridiculous.

Nowhere did I say that class does not exist. You're just jumping to lazy conclusions.

seahorse wrote:

Hierarchical class structures will continue to persist in any capitalist society, since one exists as a result of the other, and it would take someone who'd had the privilege of living a life unscathed by this truism to make the inane denial of the existence of social class. Cantab explains himself where his problem with AH comes from - he applied for one and it wasnt cheap enough for his liking!

Actually, I don't have any property in Ireland and I wouldn't buy any property in Ireland in 2007, no matter how cheap it was. I certainly wouldn't buy an affordable home.

seahorse wrote:

& PeakOutput; I hope you're not still offended by my use of the word 'ignorance', and I hope you realise that I was in fact being entirely genuine when I said that it was not meant to be received in the sense that it often is thesedays, with it's negative and inaccurate connotations with stupidity.

I think, like Foxy, I've also had enough of this thread; I've too much to be getting on with to be elsewhere.

Let's not get hung-up on the definition of 'ignorance' - that's what a thesaurus is for. Although for someone learning English who wants to know what 'ignorance' really means, just look at some of seahorse's posts.

mikemac

Cantab. wrote:

Foxy06: you are obviously entitled to shelter in a council home given your circumstances. What pisses me off about you is that you expect to be given an asset worth hundreds of thousands of euro courtesy of the taxpayer. Why don't you just stick to your accountancy degree and try and make life better for yourself?

Agree with above
Foxy 06, if you're earning good money as an accountant in a few years and you're in a position to buy a home, then you should give up your council house and let someone else who needs it more have it.
You were in need of accomadation and the government has provided this (without a kitchen you say) while you got your life organized and worked towards your qualification. I say the governments role ends with that, don't expect or feel entitled to more.

Giving you a discount is just giving you a chance to increase your personal wealth and tax payers money shoudn't be going towards that.
That includes rich people availing of Section 23 and less well off people like you Fox06 or indeed me if I applied for affordable housing.

And as others have stated, once your house is sold to you, no other family in need of council accomadation will ever get to use it.

Victor

micmclo wrote:

Foxy 06, if you're earning good money as an accountant in a few years and you're in a position to buy a home, then you should give up your council house and let someone else who needs it more have it.

All this would do is perpetuate the idea of council housing = poor people. This is what royaly messed up a lot of areas in the 1970s and 1980s. As soon as people improved themselves they were encouraged to move out and buy thier own place. Then more marginalised / unemployed / disfunctional people were moved into the council estate, making it more difficult for that area to improve.

Slydice

Victor wrote:

All this would do is perpetuate the idea of council housing = poor people. This is what royaly messed up a lot of areas in the 1970s and 1980s. As soon as people improved themselves they were encouraged to move out and buy thier own place. Then more marginalised / unemployed / disfunctional people were moved into the council estate, making it more difficult for that area to improve.

It might make it more difficult for that area to improve but surely it would help these more marginalised / unemployed / disfunctional people to improve themselves?

stovelid

Victor wrote:

All this would do is perpetuate the idea of council housing = poor people. This is what royaly messed up a lot of areas in the 1970s and 1980s. As soon as people improved themselves they were encouraged to move out and buy thier own place. Then more marginalised / unemployed / disfunctional people were moved into the council estate, making it more difficult for that area to improve.

++

I remember the generous (then) housing grants that were introduced for council tenants in the mid 80s to buy privately. In effect, people with jobs / with interest in the community were stripped from places like West Tallaght and the social effects were profound and long lasting.

Victor

Slydice wrote:

It might make it more difficult for that area to improve but surely it would help these more marginalised / unemployed / disfunctional people to improve themselves?

If everyone in a neighbourhood is marginalised / unemployed / disfunctional / in need of help (whatever form that might take) and outside help isn't provided, how are things meant to improve?

Slydice

Victor wrote:

If everyone in a neighbourhood is marginalised / unemployed / disfunctional / in need of help (whatever form that might take) and outside help isn't provided, how are things meant to improve?

I thought giving someone a cheap place to live in was outside help

stovelid

Slydice wrote:

I thought giving someone a cheap place to live in was outside help

Sure, it helps as people are not left homeless which is a good thing. State housing is an altruistic idea in principle.

All that's being said is that when social problems like unemployment, crime, lack of facilities and anti social behavior are concentrated in one area; it's has major social effects.

This isn't helped by the tendency of people to leave those areas if they if possibly can.

gurramok

On the topic of council housing, how about this.

'Single mother with 3 kids' has recently moved into a 3bed house granted by the council in a council estate on my mothers road.
She does not work, is on welfare raising kids, drives a nice car and above all else her partner who also drives a nice car is living with her helping out, which i thought was illegal.

Before she moved in, the corpo stripped the second hand house(which was sold back to corpo by private buyer) of all working appliances/carpets/floors etc to leave a shell, she is now on a waiting list for a washing machine.
Only thing what was worth putting in was the new windows, the rest was made bare.

So correct me if i'm wrong, what this means is that if she gets married, her chances of retaining that house and benefits is slim as she will have the means to support herself via husband, its an anti-marriage issue in this case?

What i don't understand is why the corpo would house this person in a council estate instead of a private estate to promote a social mix??

Slydice

stovelid wrote:

Sure, it helps as people are not left homeless which is a good thing. State housing is an altruistic idea in principle.

All that's being said is that when social problems like unemployment, crime, lack of facilities and anti social behavior are concentrated in one area; it's has major social effects.

I can't argue with that. The proof is there, you just need to look to see it.

stovelid wrote:

This isn't helped by the tendency of people to leave those areas if they if possibly can.

That is their freedom though so focusing on that issue and trying to reverse it would be wrong. It's not something exclusive to poor people. In my experience people who make money go and use it to find better living conditions. This can start with new stuff for their current houses but usually if they get enough money will go on to buy a bigger house that can have more stuff or is near more amenities or has more convenience for them in some other way. I wouldn't be surprised by this. I don't expect or think people should earn money and then sit on their asses by not using it to their own benefit.

stovelid

Slydice wrote:

That is their freedom though so focusing on that issue and trying to reverse it would be wrong. It's not something exclusive to poor people. In my experience people who make money go and use it to find better living conditions. This can start with new stuff for their current houses but usually if they get enough money will go on to buy a bigger house that can have more stuff or is near more amenities or has more convenience for them in some other way. I wouldn't be surprised by this. I don't expect or think people should earn money and then sit on their asses by not using it to their own benefit.

I hear ya. Never said I disagreed with people leaving.

The point was the traditional council estate model (clearing out the inner city to the typical 60s -80s sink estates) seems to have failed.

People who are vulnerable and more disadvantaged stay in the cycle.

People who buck the odds and who might give something positive to the area (stable children, community initiative etc) understandably get out as quickly as possible if they get the means together.

Victor

Slydice wrote:

In my experience people who make money go and use it to find better living conditions.

Indeed, but instead of moving from one area to another, surely they should be able to get a bigger / better place on the same street / in the same neighbourhood?

That is the idea behind the 20% social and affordable housing and the encouraging of mixed property sizes - not estates of one house type only. The one big obstacle to this is stamp duty.

In parts of Finglas and other areas of Dublin City, the council has rezoned small pockets of green space to put in maybe 10-20 houses. That way, young couples can continue to live in the area they grew up in with the existing social supports - mostly friends and family - and hopefully defeating some of the 'tear-away yoof' culture.

Planting people in an area away from their existing social supports deminishes the sense of social cohesiveness and responsibility.

Slydice

Victor wrote:

Indeed, but instead of moving from one area to another, surely they should be able to get a bigger / better place on the same street / in the same neighbourhood?

They should be able to and indeed in some places where social and affordable housing actually exists (rare but I've heard of an instance or two) they can.

Thing is though, I still think that if people think they can do better by moving somewhere else completely, then they would. I've seen it happen before and I've a gut feeling that unless you force a balanced dispersal (depending on peoples money, social status and problems etc) that the trend can't be stopped.

I just feel that people honestly want to do better for themselves if they can I also have this perception that moving up the property market or moving to neighbourhoods with better reputations is one way of doing that. People who have more money by and large seem to have gotten it from more work/education and seem to be safer to live around. There's obviously contradictions to this but it's just what I think from what I've seen.

gurramok

There is not much building space in established suburbs to provide new housing bar what Victor described.

Somehow the councils have a policy of homing people who applied for affordable housing in new housing only(i'm sure about this not 100%, seems to be 100% by evidence!)
Then on the other hand, social housing seems to be bit of new and 2nd hand which dont make sense.

Victor, is stamp duty the reason the councils won't house people on affordable lists in 2nd hand housing?

It hardly helps keeping young people in an area with high prices when their only opportunity to housing is the new stuff where its built miles away.

Victor

gurramok wrote:

Victor, is stamp duty the reason the councils won't house people on affordable lists in 2nd hand housing?

I merely mentioned stamp duty as it is a transaction charge-type tax (as opposed to a value increase-type tax like VAT). Stamp duty discourages people from moving from one home to another, often leaving people in a property that is too big or too small for their needs.

gurramok

Victor wrote:

I merely mentioned stamp duty as it is a transaction charge-type tax (as opposed to a value increase-type tax like VAT). Stamp duty discourages people from moving from one home to another, often leaving people in a property that is too big or too small for their needs.

Very true for private transactions, my own mother is stuck in that situation!

But is there any specific reason why the councils don't touch 2nd hand housing for affordable allocation?
It just don't make sense offering only new build housing outside the established area hence leaving family social breakdown.

The_Conductor

gurramok wrote:

But is there any specific reason why the councils don't touch 2nd hand housing for affordable allocation?
It just don't make sense offering only new build housing outside the established area hence leaving family social breakdown.

The reason is it would entail a council subsidising the sale price of the property and would be a net drain on their resources- whereas for new builds that subsidy is absorbed by the developer/those buying full price properties in the development.

S.

gurramok

smccarrick wrote:

The reason is it would entail a council subsidising the sale price of the property and would be a net drain on their resources- whereas for new builds that subsidy is absorbed by the developer/those buying full price properties in the development.

S.

Ah, that would make sense.
I know that the council does buy 2nd hand housing off old people and then house them in new senior citizen complexes and in return the council gets a percentage of the sale price.

But..why do the council for example allocate that 2nd hand house only to social housing where they only get a small rent rather than using it for affordable housing?(i know of this happening personally)

Affordable applicants have more wealth than a social applicant hence wealth is exported from an area.
It sounds in the above example that the poor are rehoused in poor areas rather than putting them in mixed areas for social cohesion, ludicrous.

jdivision

smccarrick wrote:

whereas for new builds that subsidy is absorbed by the developer/those buying full price properties in the development.

S.

That's not true, the developer pays less for the land upfront to take into account the s&a measures.

The_Conductor

jdivision wrote:

That's not true, the developer pays less for the land upfront to take into account the s&a measures.

That may very well be the theory- but post introduction of these measures there has not been a reciprochal decrease in the prices paid to landowners (it has fallen slightly in some cases, in others its risen)- which would, by elimination, determine that those higher up the chain are bearing the brunt of the measure. There are of course exceptions (notably developments in Wicklow and Carlow)- where the land was factored into the price of the unit sale price and this was shown to have decreased- but those are exceptions.

Victor

gurramok wrote:

But..why do the council for example allocate that 2nd hand house only to social housing where they only get a small rent rather than using it for affordable housing?(i know of this happening personally)

Affordable applicants have more wealth than a social applicant hence wealth is exported from an area. It sounds in the above example that the poor are rehoused in poor areas rather than putting them in mixed areas for social cohesion, ludicrous.

Putting the (presumably less well off) social housing users into existing mature areas puts them at less risk of being (further) marginalised.

jdivision

smccarrick wrote:

That may very well be the theory- but post introduction of these measures there has not been a reciprochal decrease in the prices paid to landowners (it has fallen slightly in some cases, in others its risen)- which would, by elimination, determine that those higher up the chain are bearing the brunt of the measure. There are of course exceptions (notably developments in Wicklow and Carlow)- where the land was factored into the price of the unit sale price and this was shown to have decreased- but those are exceptions.

No, it happened in every case. Land values rose anyway because house prices were rising, so even though the 20 per cent s&a element was taken into account, land prices still rose. You only need to look at the premiums paid for land with no s&a housing obligations post the introduction of the measure to see the difference. It's the landowner who "suffered" in that they would have had a bit more for the land if they hadn't introduced the measure. However, the landowner benefits from the rezoning of land and also had CGT cut from 40 to 20 per cent so they're still in a great position.