Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Social housing in Dublin 15

Options
«1

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    athtrasna
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,420 ✭✭✭✭athtrasna


    May be seen as nimby-ism but I'm not delighted. I'd be less than happy if I'd bought a new house in that cluster. I think councils should buy before a development is released for sale to the general public as people may have reconsidered buying were they fully informed.


  • Options
    #3
    Brenlyn
    Registered Users Posts: 4 ✭Brenlyn


    Would love to know what part of the development it is in I presume that it is the new builds that are being built and not in Brandon Sq that seems to be fully sold out


  • Options
    #4
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    They already have social housing in Waterville. I know a couple living in an apartment there that is owned by the council.


  • Options
    #5
    athtrasna
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,420 ✭✭✭✭athtrasna


    January wrote: »
    They already have social housing in Waterville. I know a couple living in an apartment there that is owned by the council.

    Not 44 in the one cluster though


  • Options
    #6
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    chucknorris wrote: »
    Fingal county council have purchased 44 of the new houses in Waterville for social housing.

    Good news, bad news or indifferent?

    https://twitter.com/CllrMcGuinness/status/666199128175718400


    What is David McGuinness saying, or is he waiting to see which way the wind blows?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    Godge wrote: »
    What is David McGuinness saying, or is he waiting to see which way the wind blows?

    He's saying while it's a start that there's still a long way to go in stopping this housing crisis.


  • Options
    #8
    December2012
    Registered Users Posts: 4,695 ✭✭✭December2012


    I think it's great. In happy that those who need help can get it.


  • Options
    #9
    athtrasna
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,420 ✭✭✭✭athtrasna


    Brenlyn wrote: »
    Would love to know what part of the development it is in I presume that it is the new builds that are being built and not in Brandon Sq that seems to be fully sold out

    Apparently a new cluster called Rossan Court. David McGuinness is looking for feedback by email if anyone is motivated to seriously comment either way.


  • Options
    #10
    handlemaster
    Registered Users Posts: 6,003 ✭✭✭handlemaster


    They could just buy up houses around D15 instead of buying all together in one lot as you know it will be rund down in a few years bringing the whole neigh ourhood down.lots of houses around the 200k maker


  • Options
    #11
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    handlemaster wrote: »
    They could just buy up houses around D15 instead of buying all together in one lot as you know it will be rund down in a few years bringing the whole neigh ourhood down.lots of houses around the 200k maker

    Yawn... :rolleyes:

    Avondale is the newest social housing project in D15, 100's of houses in one area and all of them council houses, they're built nearly 4 years now and there are no problems, nothing is run down. Maybe, just maybe, people that live in social housing know how to behave themselves these days. The majority of them anyway.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    handlemaster
    Registered Users Posts: 6,003 ✭✭✭handlemaster


    January wrote: »
    Yawn... :rolleyes:

    Avondale is the newest social housing project in D15, 100's of houses in one area and all of them council houses, they're built nearly 4 years now and there are no problems, nothing is run down. Maybe, just maybe, people that live in social housing know how to behave themselves these days. The majority of them anyway.

    Give it time. .


  • Options
    #13
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    handlemaster wrote: »
    Give it time. .

    Give it time and what? I live on a council estate - I bought my house so I guess that makes me okay - and the social housing is in great condition, they put my house to shame. These houses will hopefully help some of those people who have found themselves fallen on hard times. Normal people like yourself. Why not give them a chance?


  • Options
    #14
    December2012
    Registered Users Posts: 4,695 ✭✭✭December2012


    handlemaster wrote: »
    Give it time. .

    That's not fair. A large portion of Dublin was originally social housing, Marino, Cabra, Ballyfermot, Coolock, Walkinstown etc. Most of these areas have matured nicely. You can have trouble anywhere, not just in social housing areas


  • Options
    #15
    athtrasna
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,420 ✭✭✭✭athtrasna


    The issue here is that Waterville is almost entirely privately owned housing, with a small number of council owned properties in each development. The council have now purchased 44 units in a single cluster effectively creating a ghetto in the middle of private housing. All this with no consultation with the owners and residents of Waterville, many of whom are in negative equity of hundreds of thousands. People are not happy and the public reps have received a mountain of complaints. It's too late to do anything about it but the underhand nature of this deal will have repercussions at the ballot box and beyond.


  • Options
    #16
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    athtrasna wrote: »
    The issue here is that Waterville is almost entirely privately owned housing, with a small number of council owned properties in each development. The council have now purchased 44 units in a single cluster effectively creating a ghetto in the middle of private housing. All this with no consultation with the owners and residents of Waterville, many of whom are in negative equity of hundreds of thousands. People are not happy and the public reps have received a mountain of complaints. It's too late to do anything about it but the underhand nature of this deal will have repercussions at the ballot box and beyond.

    Why should they consult residents? Why would you describe social housing as a ghetto? You do realise a lot of posters here live in these 'ghettos'. It's a horrible way to refer to those areas and says a lot about your attitude to those who live in them. What's your issue here, the fact people will live in the same spec house as yourself for a fraction of the cost or snobbery about the riff raff moving in?


  • Options
    #17
    Larbre34
    Registered Users Posts: 24,076 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    athtrasna wrote: »
    It's too late to do anything about it but the underhand nature of this deal will have repercussions at the ballot box and beyond.

    Not necessarily. If the acquistion in such a block violates their own policies of social mix and appropriate scale, they could be forced to divest some or all. Buying the units would have been a decision by the Council executive, as in most things the Councillors are powerless, but of course they should have been more on top of their brief. Even if the whole Council changed at the ballot box, the executive could carry on with this policy regardless.


  • Options
    #18
    athtrasna
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,420 ✭✭✭✭athtrasna


    eviltwin wrote: »
    Why should they consult residents? Why would you describe social housing as a ghetto? You do realise a lot of posters here live in these 'ghettos'. It's a horrible way to refer to those areas and says a lot about your attitude to those who live in them. What's your issue here, the fact people will live in the same spec house as yourself for a fraction of the cost or snobbery about the riff raff moving in?

    My reference to ghetto is in the sense of an area of minority in the middle of majority. Maybe oasis would work too. Waterville is almost entirely privately owned.

    My issue is that there was a development plan for Waterville and this deviates from that. Owners spent significant sums of money based on the plan and it has been changed without warning or consultation. This is the issue I have. There are social houses all over Waterville but at low concentration. 44 houses together is a massive change


  • Options
    #19
    December2012
    Registered Users Posts: 4,695 ✭✭✭December2012


    athtrasna wrote: »
    The issue here is that Waterville is almost entirely privately owned housing, with a small number of council owned properties in each development ............. All this with no consultation with the owners and residents of Waterville, many of whom are in negative equity of hundreds of thousands

    So what? Its nobody else's business.


  • Options
    #20
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    athtrasna wrote: »
    My reference to ghetto is in the sense of an area of minority in the middle of majority. Maybe oasis would work too. Waterville is almost entirely privately owned.

    My issue is that there was a development plan for Waterville and this deviates from that. Owners spent significant sums of money based on the plan and it has been changed without warning or consultation. This is the issue I have. There are social houses all over Waterville but at low concentration. 44 houses together is a massive change

    Oh well, plans change, there is a homeless crisis. Housing is needed, so what if you weren't consulted. 44 houses is a small number and it shouldn't cause any major issues with your precious haven of houses.


  • Options
    #21
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    athtrasna wrote: »
    My reference to ghetto is in the sense of an area of minority in the middle of majority. Maybe oasis would work too. Waterville is almost entirely privately owned.

    My issue is that there was a development plan for Waterville and this deviates from that. Owners spent significant sums of money based on the plan and it has been changed without warning or consultation. This is the issue I have. There are social houses all over Waterville but at low concentration. 44 houses together is a massive change

    I don't see what difference it will make. They will be the exact same houses as the rest of the development, they are not going to look different. The only difference will be how the occupiers came to have them and clearly you have an issue with the idea of social housing clients in your area. The reality is we have a major housing issue and its probably only going to get worse. It makes no sense to have people in bed and breakfasts or hotels long term and if they can be accommodated in a proper home then its a good thing.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Gaspode
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Regional East Moderators, Regional Midlands Moderators, Regional Midwest Moderators, Regional Abroad Moderators, Regional North Mods, Regional West Moderators, Regional South East Moderators, Regional North East Moderators, Regional North West Moderators, Regional South Moderators Posts: 8,032 CMod ✭✭✭✭Gaspode


    OK lets not get personal - attack the post not the poster. This is a tricky issue - we all scoff at NIMBYism until something arrives on our own doorstep!


  • Options
    #23
    handlemaster
    Registered Users Posts: 6,003 ✭✭✭handlemaster


    eviltwin wrote: »
    I don't see what difference it will make. They will be the exact same houses as the rest of the development, they are not going to look different. The only difference will be how the occupiers came to have them and clearly you have an issue with the idea of social housing clients in your area. The reality is we have a major housing issue and its probably only going to get worse. It makes no sense to have people in bed and breakfasts or hotels long term and if they can be accommodated in a proper home then its a good thing.


    If you bought a property and then all a sudden all around you became social housing the value of your property would go down. How sympathic would you be then ?


  • Options
    #24
    December2012
    Registered Users Posts: 4,695 ✭✭✭December2012


    I genuinely wouldn't worry. I was brought up in social housing and the area matured very nicely. No hassle or trouble either.


  • Options
    #25
    Gererreh Tona
    Registered Users Posts: 46 ✭Gererreh Tona


    December2012 wrote: »
    I genuinely wouldn't worry. I was brought up in social housing and the area matured very nicely. No hassle or trouble either.

    It's the exception rather than the rule in fairness. Look at the council estate parts of Ballyfermot/Finglas/Crumlin/Drimnagh/Tallaght. They are still plagued by anti-social behavior and crime 50-60 years later.


  • Options
    #26
    December2012
    Registered Users Posts: 4,695 ✭✭✭December2012


    I disagree. Plagued is a very strong word. You are talking about suburbs with huge populations


  • Options
    #27
    Rosser
    Registered Users Posts: 591 ✭✭✭Rosser


    December2012 wrote: »
    I disagree. Plagued is a very strong word. You are talking about suburbs with huge populations

    And anti social problems to match the population which is why a mix of private and public housing is actually desirable. On the other hand where a development is going to be mixed it's not unreasonable for people to know what they are buying in to.


  • Options
    #28
    root69
    Registered Users Posts: 138 ✭✭root69


    Everywhere i read on topic of social housing it is common to find reference to a percentage of social houses among private housing.

    Does anyone knows if tese values are somewhere written down?

    Secondly, why the concern to keep a low % to social housing?


  • Options
    #29
    ongarboy
    Registered Users Posts: 5,201 ✭✭✭ongarboy


    root69 wrote: »
    Everywhere i read on topic of social housing it is common to find reference to a percentage of social houses among private housing.

    Does anyone knows if tese values are somewhere written down?

    Secondly, why the concern to keep a low % to social housing?

    It used to be 20% obligation for developments but during the Celtic tiger, developers had the option to "buy out" the social obligation percentange and have it swapped onto other land. It would mean developers could command a higher market price for the new homes if buyers knew there was no social component (google NIMBYism if you want to know why people would think that way - some of the posts on this thread are clues too). Of course that went against the principle of genuine integration of public and private mixed housing as those "buy outs" usually were reassigned to places which were fully or majority council housing occupied, thus increasing the ghetto scenario the councils were trying to avoid. I understand new legislation is trying to combat this per attached.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/new-law-means-builders-must-provide-social-housing-1.1948543


  • Options
    #30
    root69
    Registered Users Posts: 138 ✭✭root69


    Thank you for you opinion. And the information on the link is quite explanatory.

    You mention the word ghetto, which i understand to describe the high or full concentration of social houses. So in this thread this was being discussed that all houses of a cluster are dedicated to social housing. Are we saying the government/council is building the scenario that originally was trying to avoid?

    Why the councils want to avoid these high concentration of social housing?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    December2012
    Registered Users Posts: 4,695 ✭✭✭December2012


    Rosser wrote: »
    And anti social problems to match the population which is why a mix of private and public housing is actually desirable. On the other hand where a development is going to be mixed it's not unreasonable for people to know what they are buying in to.

    So all the population in social housing causes anti social problems?


Advertisement