Social housing in Dublin 15

Rosser

December2012 wrote: »

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

Well now do you honestly think that was what I was saying?

Do you dispute that areas of exclusively social housing have anti social issues in the higher percentile because it's an absolute fact that they do, Google to your heart's content if you doubt it.

That is not to say it's all the population in fact the overwhelming majority are not but there is a higher concentration of a small number who cause problems.

December2012

Rosser wrote: »

And anti social problems to match the population.

This is what you said.

root69

Right... i think it is very easy to just grab someones post and words and turn the focus on that... the thread becomes a dispute of wording about who said what and the original topic is lost...

From this thread we were trying to understand the impact to a surrunding area, if any, of social housing.

Definition, purpose, social contribution, demographic, geography and concentration vs distribution... all input around that will help clarify the main topic...

Does anyone knows why high concentration of social houses is not desirable?

root69

Rosser wrote: »

Do you dispute that areas of exclusively social housing have anti social issues in the higher percentile because it's an absolute fact that they do, Google to your heart's content if you doubt it.

If you read ASB Strategy (very short document)--attached., page 6, Section 4, paragraph "Allocation" and "Strategic Allocation".

Unless i am understanding what i read incorrectly and this it has noting to do with social housing.

Please let me know if you read different

wildlifeboy

rabble rabble stupid generalising

Gaspode

Warning #2. Lets keep it on topic, drop the sweeping generalities and discuss the OP like grownups please.

wildlifeboy

Sorry Gaspode, although I do think that there will be an elemant of anti social behaviour which is endemic in social housing

Gaspode

What do people (on this thread) mean by social housing - are we talking about the affordable homes that the developers set aside on new developments or are we talking the old council/corporation estates? I see them as two separate things, but it seems like they're one and the same reading some of the posts above.

January

They're talking about local authority council housing. Which is what has been bought in Waterville. Not affordable housing.

athtrasna

Gaspode wrote: »

What do people (on this thread) mean by social housing - are we talking about the affordable homes that the developers set aside on new developments or are we talking the old council/corporation estates? I see them as two separate things, but it seems like they're one and the same reading some of the posts above.

In the context of this thread I mean that the council has bought 44 houses (worth in the region of 350k each) in the middle of a private development and is going to house 44 families in them who will pay minimal rent to the council for them.

Having spoken to a lot of my neighbours since the announcements the major concerns are twofold while almost being the same. One being the possibility that troublesome/undesirable tenants may get some of the houses leading to anti social behaviour in the area. The other is that because the new tenants aren't struggling to pay 350k mortgages, they may not be so proud of their area and they may not respect the area, the planting, the walls etc.

I've also spoken to people in some of the closer clusters to Rossan Court and their big worries are property values and tenant selection. Part of Waterville is still in almost 100% negative equity so property values are very stressful at the best of times.

Gaspode

Well as someone from a local authority area which had a bit of a bad rep, I think most of the fears stated here are perhaps a tad, nay even a smidgeon, over-stated. Sure local authority areas do have in general a high percentage of people who would behave in anti-social behaviour, but they are still a small section of the general population of those areas. It's just that the scumbags are really really bloody scummy and drag the name of their areas down disproportionately.
IME, the majority of people in authority housing are fine and just want to live their lives in peace and quiet, same as people in privately purchased housing.

Rosser

December2012 wrote: »

This is what you said.

How about 'proportionate to'?

root69

Well. These type of housing needs to exist. That is why there is a contribution that each developer should and fair enough..

The question is regarding the concentration of these houses. There are plans in place that strategise concentration and distribution of houses. I found council planning that goes back 10years.. surely oug of date, but the point is that these are in place to attempt to deal with whatever obstacles can come from high concentration.... obstacles which are not known to me today.

The latest news on that area of waterville, show a high concentration. One all cluster, instead of spread accross all of waterville.

Even if the people entitle to those properties follow the selection criterias, which are also stated in documents, the fact is that these houses were announced not as social houses in waterville, but as a all cluster dedicated to social type houses. All for the need of advertising.