Social houses in my estate

Zamboni

kildare.17hmr wrote: »

the first 3 imo are begrudging and imo who cares!? like i said before you should worry about yourself and what you have and not what anyone else has

For the last time. I do not begrudge anyone anything. Genuinely, best of luck to them.
However, I do believe it is a shocking indictment of a society where the helpee can end up being in a better position than the helper.
I think a society can and should fulfill its humane duty to folks in need, via housing, basic income and supports but I also believe a society should value the efforts of work, acheivement and sucess.
I also happen to think these ideas are not mutually exclusive.
The problem arises when the low earners are and can be in a worse off situation than a non earner. This paradox in theory could lead to more people taking from the system rather than contributing.

bubbuz

Zamboni wrote: »

The problem arises when the low earners are and can be in a worse off situation than a non earner. This paradox in theory could lead to more people taking from the system rather than contributing.

That I do TOTALLY agree with Zamboni, I've been their myself and do understand your point, unfortunately thats been the case for years gone by and will be for years to come but THANKFULLY its the minority and not everyone can be judged the same.

Graces7

Oddjob wrote: »

What? He never tried to get into a hostel, probably because he wanted to get drunk. It was his choice to move to Ireland where he had no accommodation, his choice to sit in a field to get drunk, his choice not to seek a hostel.

Should the homeless be rounded up every night and forced into hostels?

He made his choices, and there's nobody to blame but him.

You know all this for fact? Have you any idea what faces homeless people, especially if they have additional issues, eg alcoholism, which is an illness?

We work with the homeless and we know that many of them have been so abused and alienated that they cannot live indoors again. Ireland has yet to learn these things; that they need to go round the streets and bring help to them. To take out sleeping bags etc; just to show some human decency and caring.

Not forcing anything; offering with compassion and dignity. So that they do not die in worse conditions than stray dogs.

Have you any idea either of conditions in some of the Eastern European countries? The utter poverty there.

So that any other country seems better.

If this man did not know what help there was how could he seek it out? Choice?

The total lack of humanity and compassion sickens .

A few years ago in Sligo Town, an old Irish man had fallen down. His head was bleeding and yes, he was drunk. Everyone, including a Garda, walked past on the other side. Yes, we stopped.

Judge not indeed. These are human beings just as we are, fallen on troubles.

I don't blame this man for getting drunk; it was all that Ireland offered him in the end.

Shame on those who blame and accuse.

God rest his soul.

Graces7

Zamboni wrote: »

For the last time. I do not begrudge anyone anything. Genuinely, best of luck to them.
However, I do believe it is a shocking indictment of a society where the helpee can end up being in a better position than the helper.
I think a society can and should fulfill its humane duty to folks in need, via housing, basic income and supports but I also believe a society should value the efforts of work, acheivement and sucess.
I also happen to think these ideas are not mutually exclusive.
The problem arises when the low earners are and can be in a worse off situation than a non earner. This paradox in theory could lead to more people taking from the system rather than contributing.

So? What is the issue here?

Please. go to the State Benefits board here and get in touch with reality. Don't judge others by how YOU would react. that refers to your last sentence,.

The second quote I have bolded makes in light of your other statements.

Maybe a little MYIB applies here as others have said.

Tordelback

melekalikimaka wrote: »

Its not and to think that is a perfect example of what a mammy state can do to peoples preception of social services

Really? And what do you think would happen to our marvelous recapitalised nationalised banks (never mind social services) if a significant proportion of domestic mortgage holders defaulted? It certainly shouldn't be the case, but thanks to the last 10 years of madness, supporting mortgage holders is now a key part of the government's responsibility to the tax-payer.

bubbuz

Graces7 wrote: »

Have you any idea either of conditions in some of the Eastern European countries? The utter poverty there.

The total lack of humanity and compassion sickens .


Judge not indeed. These are human beings just as we are, fallen on troubles.



Shame on those who blame and accuse.

Not enough posts up yet to say thanks........ THANK YOU.
We are all born with our eyes shut and we all die with them shut, the only difference is some live life with their's open and some never open theirs at all.

Zamboni

Graces7 wrote: »

So? What is the issue here?

Please. go to the State Benefits board here and get in touch with reality. Don't judge others by how YOU would react. that refers to your last sentence,.

The second quote I have bolded makes in light of your other statements.

I have tried but failed to see any coherent logic in the random words you have used.
You clearly don't read what is posted, or indeed write based on anything posted, but you make up an idea in your head as to what is going on and react accordingly.
I cannot converse with you in any reasonably sensible fashion.

Oddjob

Graces7 wrote: »

You know all this for fact? Have you any idea what faces homeless people, especially if they have additional issues, eg alcoholism, which is an illness?

We work with the homeless and we know that many of them have been so abused and alienated that they cannot live indoors again. Ireland has yet to learn these things; that they need to go round the streets and bring help to them. To take out sleeping bags etc; just to show some human decency and caring.

Not forcing anything; offering with compassion and dignity. So that they do not die in worse conditions than stray dogs.

Have you any idea either of conditions in some of the Eastern European countries? The utter poverty there.

So that any other country seems better.

If this man did not know what help there was how could he seek it out? Choice?

The total lack of humanity and compassion sickens .

A few years ago in Sligo Town, an old Irish man had fallen down. His head was bleeding and yes, he was drunk. Everyone, including a Garda, walked past on the other side. Yes, we stopped.

Judge not indeed. These are human beings just as we are, fallen on troubles.

I don't blame this man for getting drunk; it was all that Ireland offered him in the end.

Shame on those who blame and accuse.

God rest his soul.

He knew what help was there, the Simon community were in contact with him at the end of November when he was given a sleeping bag, and he attended the Capuchin center daily for meals.

But you can continue to rant about an incident that you know nothing about. And I'm sure you know exactly what Ireland can offer as that was the reason you moved here.

melekalikimaka

Tordelback wrote: »

Really? And what do you think would happen to our marvelous recapitalised nationalised banks (never mind social services) if a significant proportion of domestic mortgage holders defaulted? It certainly shouldn't be the case, but thanks to the last 10 years of madness, supporting mortgage holders is now a key part of the government's responsibility to the tax-payer.

domestic mortgages does not represent a huge proportion of the debt, and the numbers in reciept is smaller again, re evaluation and extension of the mortgages imo would be a better option that basically supporting the people who got themselves into a financial mess by buying in a market that was clearly inflated at a point where ressession was marked on the horizon.

desertcircus

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

desertcircus wrote: »

Because of course what we should do is take everyone who needs council housing and ghettoise them. Nothing ill can come of that.

They're renting, you've bought. You're not in the same situation, so don't bother comparing.

Surely its only a ghetto if the people make it in to one? If they are all lovely people that are fine to be housed in a private estate then what harm will them living next to each other do?

Because there's much more to lose in terms of how nice your place is when you're living in a leafy estate with lots of working neighbours. Because homeowners tolerate antisocial behaviour a lot less and are more likely to report any such behaviour to the cops. Because the minority of disruptive children are widely dispersed and can't disrupt your child's education. Because there isn't a huge cohort of young people in the area with no jobs or prospects. All those problems are a lot milder with a dispersed population.

Oddjob

desertcircus wrote: »

Because there's much more to lose in terms of how nice your place is when you're living in a leafy estate with lots of working neighbours. Because homeowners tolerate antisocial behaviour a lot less and are more likely to report any such behaviour to the cops. Because the minority of disruptive children are widely dispersed and can't disrupt your child's education. Because there isn't a huge cohort of young people in the area with no jobs or prospects. All those problems are a lot milder with a dispersed population.

I signed for a mortgage, not a contract to train my neighbors how to act in a civilised way.

desertcircus

Oddjob wrote: »

desertcircus wrote: »

Because there's much more to lose in terms of how nice your place is when you're living in a leafy estate with lots of working neighbours. Because homeowners tolerate antisocial behaviour a lot less and are more likely to report any such behaviour to the cops. Because the minority of disruptive children are widely dispersed and can't disrupt your child's education. Because there isn't a huge cohort of young people in the area with no jobs or prospects. All those problems are a lot milder with a dispersed population.

I signed for a mortgage, not a contract to train my neighbors how to act in a civilised way.

Leaving aside the charmless and revealing fact that you think it's about training savages rather than a simple incentive structure: you get to live in a peaceful society under the rule of law. In return, you pay taxes to help poor people and to improve the public good. You don't like that? Move to Mogadishu. Social housing being situated among private is a far more socially beneficial way of spending than leaving them in a ghetto.

Oddjob

desertcircus wrote: »

Leaving aside the charmless and revealing fact that you think it's about training savages rather than a simple incentive structure: you get to live in a peaceful society under the rule of law. In return, you pay taxes to help poor people and to improve the public good. You don't like that? Move to Mogadishu. Social housing being situated among private is a far more socially beneficial way of spending than leaving them in a ghetto.

One of the many benefits of living in a civilised society is that I can choose where I want to live, so I live where I don't have social housing near me and there probably never will be. I'm sure the vast majority are lovely people but even a small minority can make your life unbearable, so I choose not to take the risk.

I have no say in where my taxes are spent, and have no problem with a certain percentage being spent on social housing, but paying for it is where my responsibility ends. Social housing being situated among private might be socially beneficial to the people getting the housing, but not to me.

Zamboni

desertcircus wrote: »

Social housing being situated among private is a far more socially beneficial way of spending than leaving them in a ghetto.

These are not the only options.
Providing people with decent accomodation, like the revamped Ballymun, gives people more dignity and prevents ghettoisation.
Stop throwing words like ghetto around the place as if it was the only inevitable opposite to social housing in private estates.

kildare.17hmr

Zamboni wrote: »

These are not the only options.
Providing people with decent accomodation, like the revamped Ballymun, gives people more dignity and prevents ghettoisation.
Stop throwing words like ghetto around the place as if it was the only inevitable opposite to social housing in private estates.

Your option requires building more homes, thats just madness!

The other option is use all the empty houses in the ghost estates around the country that are up to scratch with puplic transport and other services, id be all for this option, the houses are there and should be used but i fear you would run into the same complaints from the few residents who are already there

awec

I'm all for helping people out, but there is a line and when the taxpayer is forking out for someone to live in a premium house / apartment in a premium area then that line has been crossed.

What's the point in me busting my balls so I can get a nice house in a nice area? I may as well not bother and then get the same standard of house in a similar area for a much cheaper price courtesy of the taxpayer.

Of course not everyone is the same. There are people on social housing through no fault of their own.

On the other hand, there are people who have no qualifications because they couldn't be bothered at school, or who have no intention of bettering themselves. These people are typically in low paying jobs (or are finding it hard to get a job). What makes these people entitled to the same standard of living as someone who worked at school, who got qualifications and who got themselves a good job?

taytoRking?

then people can move country if need be .......have you looked at the jobs on offer????plenty of jobs out there just for higher educated people....thats my point

taytoRking?

MagicMarker wrote: »

You think the government should provide a minimum of 6 hours of courses for half a million people every day?

I'm afraid I can't make head nor tail of the rest of your post, are you saying we should spend the 188 per week on the courses instead giving it to people, or we should give people the choice of courses for 6 hours or working for 8?

Really, I have no clue what you're on about.

then read it slower and you might get what i said...........
we give 188 to people for doin fk all......make em do 6 hrs a day for that money...it wont take long for them to kop on that they'd rather work an extra 2 hrs and get a min paid job...and theres plenty of min jobs out there.....mainly for people who are close to brain dead or women ha......

taytoRking?

kildare.17hmr wrote: »

How much do you think thats gonna cost????!!!!

civil servants are getn paid for doing as little as possible in their jobs...fas is a joke and plenty of empty seats in colleges all over the country...FILL THE SEATS...costs a lot less than leaving people signing on as a career......

kildare.17hmr

taytoRking? wrote: »

civil servants are getn paid for doing as little as possible in their jobs...fas is a joke and

that really has nothing to do with it

plenty of empty seats in colleges all over the country...FILL THE SEATS...costs a lot less than leaving people signing on as a career......

Its a good idea and i would sort of agree but you cant just do that becaue it costs money!

RosieJoe

kildare.17hmr wrote: »

that really has nothing to do with it

You could say that about 80% of this thread

anushka

crimebuster.
There's no gravey train here, and i dont know how much rent these people pay, but if they are decent people well and good, if they are troublesome, it is much easier to get rid of them, than if they were the house owners, so it might not be as bad as you think. in regard to cars ring the guards if they dont help ring the appropriate council
good luck

Chinasea

Come live amongst a social housing estate and then perhaps comment. We bought an ex council house in good spirit with utilitarian naiveté.

During the boom times we and the tiny handful of working families in the estate were the only ones with lights on in their house at 7.00am whilst the long term unemployed lavished in their beds with no intention of EVER working. Many of them are on so called 'disability' benefits as they claim they are depressed and get doctors and all the other entitlements of which their are many - darn well free.

I have a problem with this.

Some of the houses are kept well but a significantly large number are unkempt because they don't give a flip and you daren't report them as you will get your windows smashed.

The_Conductor

Ok guys- this has meandered so far off course, I'm closing this thread.
OP- I don't know whether you are genuinely asking whether the presence of Social Housing units in your estate has devalued your property or not- and to be honest- given the amount of drivel on this thread bashing those on social welfare- along with attacks back again by those on social welfare- short of locking everyone in a room and telling you all to come out when you've sorted your differences, there is not going to be a yea or nay resolution to this debate.

Topic closed.